Mackey Mouse Physics Demolished

[bryan]

Help understanding the Destructions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm

Anders Björkman 2008


M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer, with more than 30 years experience of tanker and ferry design, construction and operations. Mr. Bjorkman has been a delegate to the IMO for various national administrations and one NGO and has been been a speaker at various Safety at Sea conferences. Mr. Bjorkman holds several patents concerned with ship safety.


http://heiwaco.tripod.com/presentation.htm


This is the best research I've seen for understanding why it was impossible for the Twin Towers to collapse without explosives. It's so simple that anybody can follow it and people who still defend the official story after reading this can be assumed to have an agenda.


There are three important points to bear in mind:



The primary (load-bearing) structure of the towers were the 283 vertical steel columns, 47 in the core and 236 around the perimeter. In theory, failure of enough of these columns could lead to the collapse of the building.


The perimeter columns were connected to the core columns by the floor trusses, which were part of the secondary (non-load-bearing) structure of the buildings. Failure of the floors or floor trusses alone could not lead to the collapse of the towers.


The total cross-sectional area of the columns constituted just 0.13% of the total floor area, while the concrete floor made up the other 99.87%.


If all 283 vertical columns failed simultaneously at the same floor level (which is ludicrous in itself), then the upper block would fall a distance of up to 12ft onto the lower block. The only way that all the force from the falling upper block could be transferred onto the lower block would be if the columns that were falling lined up with the columns that were still standing.

Anders Björkman's description of what would happen is far more sensible.

The columns at the bottom of the falling upper block pierce the concrete floor at the top of the lower structure or break the welds connecting the floor trusses to the columns. The columns at the top of the lower block do exactly the same to the floor at the bottom of the falling upper block. As the upper block falls, the columns continue to pierce more floors, until the collapse is arrested due to friction. The diagram below shows how it happens and there are more details from the article itself underneath.


http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1slicea.GIF
................A...............................B. ..............................C................... ............D...............................E


So let's assume the upper part gets loose (A). It means that the potential energy, PE, available in a one-story drop was greater than the local strain energy to be overcome in the initiation zone, i.e. crushing all columns there. It is furthermore assumed that the compressive force, necessary for a descent was available; otherwise the motion would not start, i.e. no initiation. If these assumptions are not fulfilled, the conclusion is that the motion will be arrested already during the damage/buckling of columns of the initiation zone and the building will stand.

What happens then? Let's assume that the upper part gets misaligned (exaggerated in picture below) outside the lower structure on two wall sides and inside on the two other wall sides of the lower structure (B) and goes down (C). Similar misalignment takes place at the core. WTC 1 with the mast on the roof is used in this example. Not all floors are shown. In WTC 2 the upper part tilted more than 10° and moved a considerable distance sideways before destruction and disappeared which has not been explained. You need a horizontal force for that, which gravity cannot provide.

The upper part walls columns (right in picture (C) above) misaligned on the inside of the lower structure will now slice through the first (red) floor below the impact zone - the floor hinges down on the (red) floor below - while the upper part walls columns (left in picture (C) above) misaligned on the outside will drop in the air and hit nothing! Actually only half the mass/walls of the upper part carried by the walls participate in the local failures that follows and results in tilting of the upper part.

On the other hand the lower structure columns (left in (C) above) on the inside of the upper part will slice through the first (green) floor of the upper part - and it hinges down too on the (red) floor below! You do not need much energy for that. It is quite evident that the upper part is not rigid as assumed by all experts at NIST and elsewhere!

And the lower structure walls columns on the outside of the upper part (right in picture (C) above) will remain ... intact!

Similar floor failures may occur at the core but there the columns are fewer and spread around and interconnected by horizontal beams to which the floors are bolted.

In (D) the upper part right wall columns inside the lower structure are assumed to have sliced three (red) floors in the lower structure and these floors have hinged down with two (green) floors of the upper part that have also been cut by the strong wall columns of the lower structure inside the upper part on top. Similar failures take place at the core. Evidently this destruction pattern will tip the upper part against the intact (right in (D) above) wall of the lower structure and the upper part will be jammed. The progressive local collapses due to some loose loads is arrested mainly due to friction between the many displaced parts, damaged or not. This more logical local collapse pattern is something NIST never considers. If the collapse is not arrested then, the upper part will disappear completely into the lower structure (E) and the left wall of the upper block will fall down in one piece to the ground! The upper part is sliced apart due to small local SEa (and not infinite SEa as assumed by NIST) and the structure below is also locally damaged, i.e. its SEb is reduced. The upper block green floors however remain inside the top of the lower structure. This destruction would not produce a lot of rubble, debris, dust or smoke!


SE: Strain energy (energy needed to cause structure to fail)
SEa: Strain energy in upper block
SEb: Strain energy in lower block


Why Global Collapse will not occur (in Layman's Terms)

What a reasonable person would expect after local failures at the initiation zone - even very serious ones - is that gravity would just slowly (no free fall) pull the upper part assembly down, some parts may contact each other and get damaged like in a soft collision by local forces, when plenty of energy is transformed into heat, and after that primary and secondary structure of upper part and parts of structure below would get entangled into one another and rub against each other. Friction develops and absorbs the remaining energy released. Some parts will fall down outside the building. This is the basic reason why a multi-parts steel structure does not ever globally collapse like a house of cards!



This kind of explanation shouldn't even be necessary, since the collapse videos show the upper block disintegrating at the start of the collapse!

[goldengoose]

Help understanding the Destructions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Debunking the Conspiracy Theory of Prof. Bazant

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm

Anders Björkman 2008



http://heiwaco.tripod.com/presentation.htm


This is the best research I've seen for understanding why it was impossible for the Twin Towers to collapse without explosives. It's so simple that anybody can follow it and people who still defend the official story after reading this can be assumed to have an agenda.


There are three important points to bear in mind:



The primary (load-bearing) structure of the towers were the 283 vertical steel columns, 47 in the core and 236 around the perimeter. In theory, failure of enough of these columns could lead to the collapse of the building.


The perimeter columns were connected to the core columns by the floor trusses, which were part of the secondary (non-load-bearing) structure of the buildings. Failure of the floors or floor trusses alone could not lead to the collapse of the towers.


The total cross-sectional area of the columns constituted just 0.13% of the total floor area, while the concrete floor made up the other 99.87%.


If all 283 vertical columns failed simultaneously at the same floor level (which is ludicrous in itself), then the upper block would fall a distance of up to 12ft onto the lower block. The only way that all the force from the falling upper block could be transferred onto the lower block would be if the columns that were falling lined up with the columns that were still standing.

Anders Björkman's description of what would happen is far more sensible.

The columns at the bottom of the falling upper block pierce the concrete floor at the top of the lower structure or break the welds connecting the floor trusses to the columns. The columns at the top of the lower block do exactly the same to the floor at the bottom of the falling upper block. As the upper block falls, the columns continue to pierce more floors, until the collapse is arrested due to friction. The diagram below shows how it happens and there are more details from the article itself underneath.


http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1slicea.GIF
................A...............................B. ..............................C................... ............D...............................E



SE: Strain energy (holds the structure together)
SEa: Strain energy in upper block
SEb: Strain energy in lower block




This kind of explanation shouldn't even be necessary, since the collapse videos show the upper block disintegrating at the start of the collapse!


Anders Bjorkman is an incompetent who believes that dropping the top third of a 110-story skyscraper from a height of two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does NOT reduce the entire structure to rubble. He is insanely wrong.

His absurdities and inability to perform basic calculations have made him an object of ridicule. You will never find another structural engineer who takes him seriously.

His "paper" is worthless, utter rubbish that has been rejected by professional journals. Mike Newman of NIST recommended that Bjorkman read a text on elementary physics.

[bryan]

Anders Bjorkman is an incompetent who believes that dropping the top third of a 110-story skyscraper from a height of two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does NOT reduce the entire structure to rubble. He is insanely wrong.

His absurdities and inability to perform basic calculations have made him an object of ridicule. You will never find another structural engineer who takes him seriously.

His "paper" is worthless, utter rubbish that has been rejected by professional journals. Mike Newman of NIST recommended that Bjorkman read a text on elementary physics.

Did you give Anders Björkman an invitation to appear on Hardfire to defend himself against your attempts to assassinate his character? If so, please provide more details.

Which 'truthers' have declined to appear on your show to debate Mackey Mouse and his bogus science? You've already told us that David Ray Griffin had second thoughts after he realized you are dishonest.

[bryan]

Physics in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4

[slaqqer]

One of the best features about this forum is the 'Ignore User' function. It makes reading much more enjoyable when the inane is weeded out.

But Mr. Bryan, you defeat that function when you quote aforementioned obvious inanity. Please keep that in mind in the future. Thanks!

-slaqqer

[goldengoose]

Did you give Anders Björkman an invitation to appear on Hardfire to defend himself against your attempts to assassinate his character? If so, please provide more details.

Which 'truthers' have declined to appear on your show to debate Mackey Mouse and his bogus science? You've already told us that David Ray Griffin had second thoughts after he realized you are dishonest.


Anders Bjorkman and I have exchanged several e-mails over the past few days. Needless to say, he tap dances, makes excuses, and for some reason, can't agree to phone the show to discuss anything with Mackey. Bjorkman has been ripped to shreds by all the engineers on the JREF. He won't be debating anybody.

No, the lying scoundrel David Ray Griffin did not "realize" that I was dishonest. He used that absurdly transparent dodge to run away from Mackey's paper, a point-by-point annihilation of the chapter on the NIST Report in Debunking 9/11 Debunking. You may recall that I pointed out to Grifter that we certainly won't be seeing any examples of my "dishonesty." I, on the other hand, can present a mountain of examples of his dishonesty.

[goldengoose]

One of the best features about this forum is the 'Ignore User' function. It makes reading much more enjoyable when the inane is weeded out.

But Mr. Bryan, you defeat that function when you quote aforementioned obvious inanity. Please keep that in mind in the future. Thanks!

-slaqqer


An idiotic, uninformed post by a total ignoramus denying the existence of a plane observed by 100,000 people may be enjoyable reading for you, but you aren't learning anything from it.

[bryan]

One of the best features about this forum is the 'Ignore User' function. It makes reading much more enjoyable when the inane is weeded out.

But Mr. Bryan, you defeat that function when you quote aforementioned obvious inanity. Please keep that in mind in the future. Thanks!

-slaqqer

If you'll explain what you mean, I'll try and help. :confused:

[goldengoose]

Physics in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4


Gage's cowardly charlatans are hiding under their beds. I dared them to face Mackey with a message headed, "No Guts, No Glory." The craven dunces could do little more than whimper about how easy Mackey would be to refute.

To which I say, THEN DO IT, FRAUDS!

[kooskoets]

One of the best features about this forum is the 'Ignore User' function. It makes reading much more enjoyable when the inane is weeded out.

But Mr. Bryan, you defeat that function when you quote aforementioned obvious inanity. Please keep that in mind in the future. Thanks!

-slaqqer

Thanks for the tip.

btw...you're a Slackware user ? (slaqqer)

[slaqqer]

Bryan: I think you are doing a fine job trying to educate the ignorant out there, but a little less troll feeding goes along way. It makes them go and haunt someone else's bridge.

koos: No, not slackware. Just chose slaqqer because it's what my cars' license plate says. :D


-slaqqer

[waitew]

Anders Bjorkman and I have exchanged several e-mails over the past few days. Needless to say, he tap dances, makes excuses, and for some reason, can't agree to phone the show to discuss anything with Mackey. Bjorkman has been ripped to shreds by all the engineers on the JREF. He won't be debating anybody.

No, the lying scoundrel David Ray Griffin did not "realize" that I was dishonest. He used that absurdly transparent dodge to run away from Mackey's paper, a point-by-point annihilation of the chapter on the NIST Report in Debunking 9/11 Debunking. You may recall that I pointed out to Grifter that we certainly won't be seeing any examples of my "dishonesty." I, on the other hand, can present a mountain of examples of his dishonesty.



Give me ONE...just ONE example of DRG's 'dishonesty'.

[bryan]

Bryan: I think you are doing a fine job trying to educate the ignorant out there, but a little less troll feeding goes along way. It makes them go and haunt someone else's bridge.


Still not sure what the "aforementioned obvious inanity" is though.

[goldengoose]

Give me ONE...just ONE example of DRG's 'dishonesty'.

You can find dozens in Mackey's 300-page paper, but I'll settle for two quickies.

Grifter continues to claim that the were no airphones on American Airlines domestic flights in 2004. Notice the year? He's right: there were none. Grifter claims that American decided to remove the phones in 2001. So far, so good. Grifter concluded that there were no airphones on AA Flight 77, so all the calls from the doomed aircraft must have been faked. In his book, Grifter lies outrageously about the technology involved in faking those calls. George Papcun, the man cited by conspiracists as the "Father of Voice-Morphing," wrote an essay explaining why faking those calls would have been, and still is, impossible. But we won't count this as one of the two lies I'm presenting.

In fact, according to John Hotard, head of Public Relations for AA, work orders for removing the phones started going out in late 2001. Phones didn't actually start getting removed until 2002. NO WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED FOR FLIGHT 77.

Griffin knows this. When it was called to his attention, he dropped his falsehood and vanished. He returned somewhat later, recycling the dishonest claim. To repeat, there is no real controversy here. There were
airphones on AA Flight 77.

I'm pressed for time at the moment. I'll return shortly.

[goldengoose]

Give me ONE...just ONE example of DRG's 'dishonesty'.

Sorry for the delay. My girlfriend was dragging me out the door.

Back to the unscrupulous David Ray Grifter:

In Debunking 9/11 Debunking, he desperately tries to revive the canard about Ben Chertoff's realtionship with Michael Chertoff. To the best of anyone's knowledge, there is no relationship. Ben insists that they're not related and he's never even met Michael. Ben's mother got the whole bogus "controversy" started when she allowed that the two "might be cousins." Some nut used to phone me demanding to speak with "Cathy Wieck." I told him repeatedly that I didn't know any Cathy Wieck and she was not related to me. Eventually, it occurred to me that I didn't really know that I had no relatives named Cathy. If the guy had searched every branch of my family tree, who knows? Maybe he would have discovered a Cathy somewhere. He would, of course, have accused me of "lying."

Here's the larger point: Suppose you could demonstrate that Ben and Michael Chertoff were distant relatives. Where do you go from there? A guy shows up at my doorstep claiming to be a distant cousin. He produces a chart showing that we are related. He proceeds to tell me that he's committed a mass murder and needs my help to create an alibi. Can someone please explain why I don't simply call the police. Am I missing something?

So, we have Grifter using a falsehood to promote an insane contention. Ben and Michael Chertoff are almost certainly not related. But what possible difference would it make if they turned out to be distant cousins?

[slaqqer]

Bryan: see PM as the rules here prevent me from making disparaging remarks against registered users in the public forums.

-slaqqer

[goldengoose]

Bryan: see PM as the rules here prevent me from making disparaging remarks against registered users in the public forums.

-slaqqer


Do you ever actually say anything?

[tabea_blumenschein]

Bryan:

You've said before that you haven't seen anybody debunk Heiwa's claims using actual physics.

Does this mechanical engineer's analysis/explanation of some of Heiwa's many errors count? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942)

[gamolon]

In fact, according to John Hotard, head of Public Relations for AA, work orders for removing the phones started going out in late 2001. Phones didn't actually start getting removed until 2002. NO WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED FOR FLIGHT 77.

Griffin knows this. When it was called to his attention, he dropped his falsehood and vanished. He returned somewhat later, recycling the dishonest claim. To repeat, there is no real controversy here. There were
airphones on AA Flight 77.

I'm pressed for time at the moment. I'll return shortly.

Funny how you supply them with an example of his dishonesty as requested and the people asking for that just disappear and never comment.

:)

[bryan]

Bryan:

You've said before that you haven't seen anybody debunk Heiwa's claims using actual physics.

Does this mechanical engineer's analysis/explanation of some of Heiwa's many errors count? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942)

Below are two of Heiwa's errors, according to your mechanical engineer:


In summary, your errors are:

1. You can not determine global forces, stress, or strain energy a priori. You MUST determine them locally, and sum them to determine the global result (crush or no crush).

2. You can not AVERAGE forces, stresses or strain energies over bigger or smaller portions of the building. This ignores stress concentrations and local strain energy concentrations, which are absolutely crucial to progressive collapse.


It seems that when analysing the alleged 'crush-down', forces can't be averaged out, but must be determined locally.

Why is it that when analysing the alleged 'plane impacts', the collision can be treated as one large mass impacting another large mass, or a 'slug of fuel' hitting a single steel column, or "an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member". In my kindergarten thread you refused to analyse the collision in terms of local forces. You would only consider the aircraft as one big lump of kinetic energy.



A large portion of the concrete was held within the footprint of the towers by the intertwined rebar and was ground to dust within the churning mass of the crushing tower, thereby contributing to slowing the upper block. A smaller portion of the concrete was thrown clear of the towers and was reduced to dust as it collided with the street.


What kind of physics is this? Is it normal for concrete to be reduced to dust as it collides with the street? Does it not just break into a few pieces?


To get back on topic, when the upper block falls onto the lower block, what materials actually impact with each other to transfer the necessary force and energy from the falling upper block to the lower block? Do you believe that the ends of all the severed columns in the upper block met the ends of the severed columns in the lower block? If not, would the ends of the columns not pierce the concrete floors and wouldn't the collapse be arrested due to friction?

[goldengoose]

Funny how you supply them with an example of his dishonesty as requested and the people asking for that just disappear and never comment.

:)


The thing about Grifter is that he disappears and then returns, just as though nothing happened.

Regarding this example, the scoundrel told a lie, got caught, and kept on telling it. The point is that Grifter's audience doesn't care that he got caught.

[helloperator]

Wait a minute goldengoose....are you saying that the wtc came down as per NIST report?

[goldengoose]

Wait a minute goldengoose....are you saying that the wtc came down as per NIST report?



Essentially, yes. A few serious researchers, including Drs. Quintiere and Astaneh, believe that NIST overestimates the importance of the dislodged fireproofing. They argue that the buildings would have collapsed even if all the fireproofing remained intact (I hope to feature Dr. Astaneh on an upcoming 'Hardfire').

No engineers or physicists anywhere in the world have raised significant objections to NIST's conclusions. I guess all of those Chinese, Russian, and Iranian scientists are in on it too.

[helloperator]

Well I suppose it depends on what engineers and scientists you believe.

Do you enjoy people pissing on your back and telling you it's raining goldengoose?

[goldengoose]

Well I suppose it depends on what engineers and scientists you believe.

Do you enjoy people pissing on your back and telling you it's raining goldengoose?

You should explain why NO--ZERO--engineers or physicists from countries unfriendly to the U.S. have found errors in the NIST Report.
You want to reject the real science contained in NIST's 10,000 pages of analysis, simulations, charts, diagrams, and calculations because it's inconvenient to your fantasy. The science, however, won't go away. You can't trick a serious researcher with agenda-driven nonsense.

[helloperator]

You should explain why NO--ZERO--engineers or physicists from countries unfriendly to the U.S. have found errors in the NIST Report.
You want to reject the real science contained in NIST's 10,000 pages of analysis, simulations, charts, diagrams, and calculations because it's inconvenient to your fantasy. The science, however, won't go away. You can't trick a serious researcher with agenda-driven nonsense.

Ohhhhhhhhhh 10,000 pages....it must be true and accurate.

The science wont go away because science is an institution closer to stuffy classic book clubs than to truth.

Who's gonna stick their neck out and challenge the NIST report? Nobody wants to be scoffed at by stuffy ponces who work for a government that holds all the aces. Nobody wants to lose their cooshy job. Nobody, including engineers, thinks for themselves. If the gobernment says it's true, well you gotta believe big daddy.

There's a million reasons for why you haven't heard anybody challenge the NIST report....truth is institutionalised...it's aportioned out in tiny bits.

tbc

[stannrodd]

Ohhhhhhhhhh 10,000 pages....it must be true and accurate.

The science wont go away because science is an institution closer to stuffy classic book clubs than to truth.

Who's gonna stick their neck out and challenge the NIST report? Nobody wants to be scoffed at by stuffy ponces who work for a government that holds all the aces. Nobody wants to lose their cooshy job. Nobody, including engineers, thinks for themselves. If the gobernment says it's true, well you gotta believe big daddy.

There's a million reasons for why you haven't heard anybody challenge the NIST report....truth is institutionalised...it's aportioned out in tiny bits.

tbc

Having said that .. what in the NIST report do you find particularly objectionable.

Did they get the technical specs for the towers wrong?

Is it more to the point that you just want to be dis-establishment.

You probably use the establishment for your own ends .. how does that place your morality when you say things like..

Nobody, including engineers, thinks for themselves.

Fairly large generalization don't you think.

Are you the only clear thinking person there is ?? I doubt very much that an engineer responsible for the construction of a mega structure like the Twin Towers cut corners to save a buck.

You see, .. if you believe that the towers fell down because of the plane impact and fire .. then you must logically also believe that the towers were a faulty design .. which in turn means you don't trust engineers to do a safe job.

It also implies that you believe the Official Fairy Tale.

Which one is it helloperator? Or do you have your own ideas about what actually happened.

Stann

[helloperator]

Well...stann....if that is your real name...I'm a feel player really. I try not to let experts intimidate me or bamboozle me with technical mumbo jumbo. I don't bow to scientists or engineers. I don't know what I use the establishment for...roads? Parks? I don't know. I don't know much about my own morality. Of course I was to be dis-establishment. I am dis-establishment. Obviously I have no advice for anyone on what to do about that.

Not sure what you mean about cutting corners and faulty design. I don't recall saying that or anything along those lines. I just remember alluding to the fact that the NIST report is a travesty.

I didn't know I was implying that the official fairy tale was true. I think you've got your wires crossed.

I was just wondering whether goldengoose enjoys the feeling of warm piss as it cascades down his back....and if he finds it comforting and soothing when he's told it's only rain.

[kooskoets]

They live with the facts. ( of life and physics )

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

[onourwayto2012]

"No engineers or physicists anywhere in the world have raised significant objections to NIST's conclusions. I guess all of those Chinese, Russian, and Iranian scientists are in on it too."

They probably want to live.

[onourwayto2012]

You should explain why NO--ZERO--engineers or physicists from countries unfriendly to the U.S. have found errors in the NIST Report.
You want to reject the real science contained in NIST's 10,000 pages of analysis, simulations, charts, diagrams, and calculations because it's inconvenient to your fantasy. The science, however, won't go away. You can't trick a serious researcher with agenda-driven nonsense.


They want to live as well....or at the very least keep their asskissing jobs

[goldengoose]

They want to live as well....or at the very least keep their asskissing jobs


Perhaps you should read the post you're responding to. No, scientists and engineers in Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela,etc. are really, really NOT worrying about "keeping their jobs" when they don't attack the NIST Report. They don't attack it because they can't find any errors in it.

No one can.

Your reply is an instant classic.

[goldengoose]

Ohhhhhhhhhh 10,000 pages....it must be true and accurate.

The science wont go away because science is an institution closer to stuffy classic book clubs than to truth.

Who's gonna stick their neck out and challenge the NIST report? Nobody wants to be scoffed at by stuffy ponces who work for a government that holds all the aces. Nobody wants to lose their cooshy job. Nobody, including engineers, thinks for themselves. If the gobernment says it's true, well you gotta believe big daddy.

There's a million reasons for why you haven't heard anybody challenge the NIST report....truth is institutionalised...it's aportioned out in tiny bits.

tbc


Stop babbling nonsense. No scientists and engineers have found major errors in the NIST Report because THERE ARE NONE.

[helloperator]

You are being urinated on goldengoose....but you think it's sweet, sweet rain.

Your delusion is all encompassing

[helloperator]

Hey, by the way goosey...nice work on the caps...but there's no need to chuck a hissy fit and start screaming tiger!

[batou]

you are being urinated on goldengoose....but you think it's sweet, sweet rain.

Your delusion is all encompassing

qft

[stannrodd]

What does qft mean ?

Stann

[batou]

it means quoted for truth

[stannrodd]

... thanks ..

.. who cuts your hair ??
?
?
?
?
Stann ? :)

[heiwa]

You should explain why NO--ZERO--engineers or physicists from countries unfriendly to the U.S. have found errors in the NIST Report.
You want to reject the real science contained in NIST's 10,000 pages of analysis, simulations, charts, diagrams, and calculations because it's inconvenient to your fantasy. The science, however, won't go away. You can't trick a serious researcher with agenda-driven nonsense.

We in France are very friendly with the U.S. since before 1789 and have found errors in the NIST report. I even propose an alternative. Lower structure of WTC 1 will stop upper part of WTC 1 destroying it. Reason - there is no such thing as a 'one-way crushing' of a structure by a part of itself dropping on it. Nothing can be one-way crushed by a part of itself. The little part cannot apply sufficent energy without destroying itself first.
I know Mackey is trying to figure out a model that proves 'one-way crushing' of structures but scale or size does not matter. If 'one-way crushing' of structures exist, just show it!

First error of Mackey is that he suggests that the little structure part (let's call it C) dropping on the big structure (let's call it A) is indestructible and fuses (??) with small parts it contacts. If that is the case 'one-way' crushing may be possible, but let's face it. C is not indestructible.

In France we can fuse electrical wires together - but gravity will not do it! Or the wire is fused = goes into two parts.

In France dropping a part of a structure on the remainder produces different results. Bouncing! C bounces on A! Arrest! A stops C brutally. Collision! C is damaged when contacting A, and A suffers local damages.

But in France never one-way crushing of structures takes place. C cannot one-way crush A.

But as we say in France: Vive la difference!

[bryan]

In France dropping a part of a structure on the remainder produces different results. Bouncing! C bounces on A! Arrest! A stops C brutally. Collision! C is damaged when contacting A, and A suffers local damages.

But in France never one-way crushing of structures takes place. C cannot one-way crush A.

But as we say in France: Vive la difference!

Vive la paix! :)

[batou]

... thanks ..

.. who cuts your hair ??
?
?
?
?
Stann ? :)

lol :D

[tabea_blumenschein]

We in France are very friendly with the U.S. since before 1789 and have found errors in the NIST report. I even propose an alternative. Lower structure of WTC 1 will stop upper part of WTC 1 destroying it. Reason - there is no such thing as a 'one-way crushing' of a structure by a part of itself dropping on it. Nothing can be one-way crushed by a part of itself. The little part cannot apply sufficent energy without destroying itself first.
I know Mackey is trying to figure out a model that proves 'one-way crushing' of structures but scale or size does not matter. If 'one-way crushing' of structures exist, just show it!

First error of Mackey is that he suggests that the little structure part (let's call it C) dropping on the big structure (let's call it A) is indestructible and fuses (??) with small parts it contacts. If that is the case 'one-way' crushing may be possible, but let's face it. C is not indestructible.

In France we can fuse electrical wires together - but gravity will not do it! Or the wire is fused = goes into two parts.

In France dropping a part of a structure on the remainder produces different results. Bouncing! C bounces on A! Arrest! A stops C brutally. Collision! C is damaged when contacting A, and A suffers local damages.

But in France never one-way crushing of structures takes place. C cannot one-way crush A.

But as we say in France: Vive la difference!

Heiwa:

Did you ever bother to address tfk's concerns regarding your "tripod" paper in this post? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942)

[bryan]

Heiwa:

Did you ever bother to address tfk's concerns regarding your "tripod" paper in this post? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942)

tfk wrote on JREF forum:

The bolts and welds were snapped as each floor disassembled, slowing the descent.


Slowing the descent to around seven floors per second?

Just think if the descent had been rapid. :eek:

[heiwa]

Heiwa:

Did you ever bother to address tfk's concerns regarding your "tripod" paper in this post? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942)

And I replied at once in this post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4505611&postcount=1944

[heiwa]

Stop babbling nonsense. No scientists and engineers have found major errors in the NIST Report because THERE ARE NONE.

Are you really certain?

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Mac3.jpg

Imagine a structure as per above sketch. The structure consists of elements m that are supported by columns. Columns between m can carry all m above, i.e. the columns get stronger the lower they are.

A plane hits the structure in the side between 2 m. There are k off m elements above this damaged area. Let's call that top section C. After a while the columns between the 2 m fail and the structural assembly above (k off m elements), i.e. C, drops down and the bottom m of C contacts another m (as shown in sketch). Let's call the assembly of m below contact section A. The impact is perfect = equal pressure between the two m everywhere (if unequal C may drop off on the side).

What happens then?

Well, at contact energy applied is converted into forces that are applied to the columns ABOVE and below and they deform.

One result is that, e.g. the upper assembly/section C bounces, while section A is compressed.

Another result may be that a set of columns fail! Which one?

Answer: the weakest ones adjacent to the impact, i.e. the columns ABOVE in section C.

The result is that another m in the C section drops down and maybe columns fail again. Which one?

Right! The columns ABOVE - still in section C.

This can take place k times and then we have m elements neatly stacked on top of section A like pancakes. Section C is compressed.

There is no problem. Section A carried k off m elements before first impact and carries them again after k impacts. Only difference is that all columns in section C have failed.

NIST suggests that section A can only carry n off elements (n<k) after impact, but it is wrong. Section A can safely carry k off elements m! It did it for 30 years at WTC 1. Section A is simply stronger than section C.

One thing is absolutely certain. Section C can never destroy section A.

NIST suggests that section C one-way crushes down section A but ... it is wrong.

I can explain this in any TV show any time. Otherwise you find it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . :)

[goldengoose]

Are you really certain?

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Mac3.jpg

Imagine a structure as per above sketch. The structure consists of elements m that are supported by columns. Columns between m can carry all m above, i.e. the columns get stronger the lower they are.

A plane hits the structure in the side between 2 m. There are k off m elements above this damaged area. Let's call that top section C. After a while the columns between the 2 m fail and the structural assembly above (k off m elements), i.e. C, drops down and the bottom m of C contacts another m (as shown in sketch). Let's call the assembly of m below contact section A. The impact is perfect = equal pressure between the two m everywhere (if unequal C may drop off on the side).

What happens then?

Well, at contact energy applied is converted into forces that are applied to the columns ABOVE and below and they deform.

One result is that, e.g. the upper assembly/section C bounces, while section A is compressed.

Another result may be that a set of columns fail! Which one?

Answer: the weakest ones adjacent to the impact, i.e. the columns ABOVE in section C.

The result is that another m in the C section drops down and maybe columns fail again. Which one?

Right! The columns ABOVE - still in section C.

This can take place k times and then we have m elements neatly stacked on top of section A like pancakes. Section C is compressed.

There is no problem. Section A carried k off m elements before first impact and carries them again after k impacts. Only difference is that all columns in section C have failed.

NIST suggests that section A can only carry n off elements (n<k) after impact, but it is wrong. Section A can safely carry k off elements m! It did it for 30 years at WTC 1. Section A is simply stronger than section C.

One thing is absolutely certain. Section C can never destroy section A.

NIST suggests that section C one-way crushes down section A but ... it is wrong.

I can explain this in any TV show any time. Otherwise you find it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . :)


So, does that mean you WILL dare to confront Mackey on 'Hardfire'? Your lunacy about C never destroying A has been refuted from here to next week by the real engineers on the JREF. You have been exposed as ineducable and laughably wrong-headed.

[tabea_blumenschein]

And I replied at once in this post http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4505611&postcount=1944

A quote from that post:

You see, it is impossible that a part of a structure (part C) can penetrate a bigger part of the same structure (part A) due to gravity alone and at say 0.7 g acceleration, leaving only 0.3 g*m force to plough throw the structure.

OH, GOD!!! You CAN'T be serious!!!!!! Subtracting downward acceleration from 1g and using THAT to estimate the force exerted on the structure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

~

Now excuse me while I clean a mouthful of tea off my monitor screen!

[stannrodd]

It's hilarious reading some of the tripe expounded by twits .. I never quite realized how the deep this shite went.

Anyway ...

@ tabea_blumenschein

.. carry on .. respects to your impeccable comments.


Cheers
Stann :)

[guntherznads]

So, does that mean you WILL dare to confront Mackey on 'Hardfire'? Your lunacy about C never destroying A has been refuted from here to next week by the real engineers on the JREF. You have been exposed as ineducable and laughably wrong-headed.

Dude put me on "Hardfire". I'll destroy anyone you put me up against in a debate. My logic is flawless.

[heiwa]

So, does that mean you WILL dare to confront Mackey on 'Hardfire'? Your lunacy about C never destroying A has been refuted from here to next week by the real engineers on the JREF. You have been exposed as ineducable and laughably wrong-headed.

Of course I will confront Mackey anywhere. Below is what can happen if C drops on A as per the Mackey model:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Mac4.jpg

One possibility is that C columns fail and C m elements pile up nicely on A.

Another posibility is that C columns fail unsymmetrical and C drops off.

Regardless - C can never one-way crush down A as per Mackey, Bazant and NIST. Easy to demonstrate.

[heiwa]

So, does that mean you WILL dare to confront Mackey on 'Hardfire'? Your lunacy about C never destroying A has been refuted from here to next week by the real engineers on the JREF. You have been exposed as ineducable and laughably wrong-headed.

Of course I will confront Mackey any time. What can happen after first column failures in the Mackey model is described at:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/crush-down-models-t145-135.html

You see, a structure C cannot crush down similar structure A due gravity when C<1/10 A. You can try to modify floor truss connections as you like in A, &c, but if you do, you have to do the same in C.

No way ever C can one-way crush A in any scale, size, model or structure!

Quite basic actually. But you can always try! It will not work.

[bryan]

It's hilarious reading some of the tripe expounded by twits .. I never quite realized how the deep this shite went.

Anyway ...

@ tabea_blumenschein

.. carry on .. respects to your impeccable comments.


Stann, tabea blumenschein is defending the official jet fuel collapse theory. Are you forgetting that you're supposed to be a 9/11 truther who supports the controlled demolition theory?

It must be hard for you to remember your lines when your story changes from one day to the next, but don't worry, there are people here who don't mind watching over you and reminding you of any inconsistencies in your position. ;)

[goldengoose]

Of course I will confront Mackey any time. What can happen after first column failures in the Mackey model is described at:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/crush-down-models-t145-135.html

You see, a structure C cannot crush down similar structure A due gravity when C<1/10 A. You can try to modify floor truss connections as you like in A, &c, but if you do, you have to do the same in C.

No way ever C can one-way crush A in any scale, size, model or structure!

Quite basic actually. But you can always try! It will not work.


As you know, Mike Newman of NIST recommended that you read an elementary physics text. Don't bother: you wouldn't understand a word of it.

Why do the real engineers on the JREF regard you as a bad joke?

[3stepsahead]

As you know, Mike Newman of NIST recommended that you read an elementary physics text. Don't bother: you wouldn't understand a word of it.

Why do the real engineers on the JREF regard you as a bad joke?


oh ye those guys that claims that newtons laws dont exist because there is none in the videos.
crash and collapse

yorue the ones thats telling jokes but were all laughing so its ok.

[stannrodd]

Stann, tabea blumenschein is defending the official jet fuel collapse theory. Are you forgetting that you're supposed to be a 9/11 truther who supports the controlled demolition theory?

It must be hard for you to remember your lines when your story changes from one day to the next, but don't worry, there are people here who don't mind watching over you and reminding you of any inconsistencies in your position. ;)

I'm pleased to hear you lot are so concerned.

I enjoy logical physics and a good chin wag .. you can presume all you like about my intentions in a debate.

As for 9/11, .. the record of what I have said .. and what I am supposed to be, is out there for all to read if they want to.

I will still target the obvious liars and the charlatans.

Stann

[heiwa]

As you know, Mike Newman of NIST recommended that you read an elementary physics text. Don't bother: you wouldn't understand a word of it.

Why do the real engineers on the JREF regard you as a bad joke?

Did he? Do they? Are they real engineers? Topic is Mackey Mouse physics, where upper section C = M = km at start destroys lower section A = N = 10km according Mackey. Reason being that something is broken in N, while nothing is broken in M and that M becomes M = m(k+1) after first impact and N becomes N = m(10k -1)! After n impacts M = m(k + n) and N = m(10k - n) acording Mackey!

According my elementary physics text the following should happen after first contact: M becomes M = m(k - 1) and N becomes N = m(10k + 1). After n impacts M = m(k - n) and N = m(10k + n). When n = k, M = 0! See figure above, where M is section C and N is section A.

Reason being that structural elements between m are weaker in M than N and are broken by the impact force. N is too strong. Another possibility is that there are unsymmetrical damages inside M when n < k and that M topples over, &c. See figure above!

When M = 0, any further destruction is impossible. It happens in any scale!

Now, question for Hardfire! Is Mackey physics correct or my text book?

[stannrodd]

No one knows for sure how the towers were damaged by the planes ..

BUT they didn't fall down straight away ..

What is the M = in your opinion ?

When M = 0, any further destruction is impossible. It happens in any scale!

They then fell down anyway .. !!

Stann ?

[djeminy]

No one knows for sure how the towers were damaged by the planes ..

BUT they didn't fall down straight away ..

What is the M = in your opinion ?



They then fell down anyway .. !!

Stann ?


So you don't believe there were any explosions in the WTC towers, then!!

Tell us please, do you and John White receive your payslips from the same
office?

[heiwa]

No one knows for sure how the towers were damaged by the planes ..

BUT they didn't fall down straight away ..

What is the M = in your opinion ?



They then fell down anyway .. !!

Stann ?

M is always the mass of the upper section above failures and N is always the mass of the lower section below failures.
N can always statically carry M! Static stresses in the M and N structures are low

First failures are where plane struck and M drops and contacts N.

Due to contact M/N and dynamic forces applied to M and N another set of failures occurs, e.g. in M above (weaker structure). So we have to restart the calculations!

Now M has one m less mass above second set of failures! This mass is evidently now added to N.

Static stresses are still unchanged in M and N.

Second set of failures causes M to drop on N again, dynamic forces develop and a third set of failures occur in M.

So we have to restart the calculations again!

Now M has another m less mass above third set of failures! This mass is evidently again added to N.

Static stresses are still unchanged in M and N. M drops again!

And so on! The dynamic forces produced by energy impact M/N damage the weaker structure in M above until there is no M left! M = 0.

So why did strong N suddenly collapse?

According NIST N lacked strain energy and could not absorb the impact forces.

NIST missed the fact that M had even less strain energy than N and that M should be destroyed first by gravity drops.

Actually, just watching any video you see that N does not collapse at all. It is blown apart from inside and not by M dropping on it.

Little M has no chance to crush down strong N due to gravity alone under any circumstances. Of course Mackey Mouse has other ideas but they are just fantasies. That's why he is confusing everybody with scale and size, &c.

[djeminy]

As you know, Mike Newman of NIST recommended that you read an elementary physics text. Don't bother: you wouldn't understand a word of it.

Why do the real engineers on the JREF regard you as a bad joke?


There's this video clip where a funny guy demonstrates how a VW can
crush all the way through a bus from one end to the other.

You, goldengoose (together with your "real" engineer friends at Jref), must
obviously take this funny guy and his demonstration very seriously.

By doing this, you, goldengoose (and your engineer friends), are making
yourself out to be total fools.

Now, tell us please, why in heavens name are you doing this??

What's the bloody point?

Please, please tell us, that your above drivel was only meant as a belated
april fools joke!

This will make us all feel much better - for there exist no joy in having to go
through the emotions of taken petty to, or feeling sorry for somebody one
doesn't really know.

[stannrodd]

So you don't believe there were any explosions in the WTC towers, then!!

Tell us please, do you and John White receive your payslips from the same
office?

Who the ferk are you ??

The FORUM POLICEMAN !!!!!

Politely answering your very demanding questions .. statement/comment

So you don't believe there were any explosions in the WTC towers, then!!

Since you didn't ask a question then you don't need an answer .. you are stating your belief about me .. based on ignorance of me. Just an attack without due cause.

So I don't believe something huh ?? Great start !!

What else are you going to conjecture .. before discussion !!

Who is John White when it comes to my pension ??

Stann

[djeminy]

Since you didn't ask a question then you don't need an answer .. you are stating your belief about me .. based on ignorance of me. Just an attack without due cause.

So I don't believe something huh ?? Great start !!

Stann

Quote:
When M = 0, any further destruction is impossible. It happens in any scale!

Stannrodd:
"They then fell down anyway .. !!"


I was obviously replying to your rather silly comment above.

Why do you pretend to not knowing what I was referring to, when it's again
bleeding obvious?

Some honesty from your hand would be gladly welcomed!

PS!
hand = pen.

[bryan]

There's this video clip where a funny guy demonstrates how a VW can
crush all the way through a bus from one end to the other.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M


Here's a post from the LetsRoll911 forum made by somebody called stannrodd in October 2007:


You need to move away from expert demolition practice as performed with minimal damage by CD Ltd .

The demo of the towers was done crudely but effectively. Take out the core and the towers would fall. They did.

The aircraft did not take out enough core columns for that to happen.

Think ... enough columns for a collapse of psy-op proportions .. and ... use plane attacks and fire to explain to idiots what happened.

Stann :cool:
__________________
It riles them to believe
That you perceive
The web they weave ..
And keep on thinking free...

Graeme Edge


http://letsrollforums.com/couple-valid-questions-t15762.html


I'm sure Stann won't mind me posting this quote from another forum, since it was obviously a totally different stannrodd who said that.

[djeminy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M


Here's a post from the LetsRoll911 forum made by somebody called stannrodd in October 2007:



http://letsrollforums.com/couple-valid-questions-t15762.html


I'm sure Stann won't mind me posting this quote from another forum, since it was obviously a totally different stannrodd who said that.


Yes that's the one - thanks bryan!

Love this classic from the clip:

"You cant use your common sense - you have to use physics.":rolleyes:

And to end it:

"Pay attention to this new physics.... that's all I gotta say!":)


....And stann was even a moderator then! I'll be damned!;)

[bryan]

Love this classic from the clip:

"You cant use your common sense - you have to use physics.":rolleyes:

And to end it:

"Pay attention to this new physics.... that's all I gotta say!":)


The physics experts keep telling us not to put too much trust in our common sense.

My mum used to say to me all the time: "It's time you started using your common sense!"

Since 9/11, mums have to say to their kids: "It's time you STOPPED using your common sense!"

[mynameis]

So why did strong N suddenly collapse?

Would this drop of force be attributed to the strain of hat tresses being stretched in tension from the top down and not the other way around? Stress would be pulled from m toward your n and not the other way around...Gravity would add to the kinetic energy dropping from above in the pancake scenario...this however does not always address if/how the core and other columns were stretched, cut, or strained.i

[heiwa]

Would this drop of force be attributed to the strain of hat tresses being stretched in tension from the top down and not the other way around? Stress would be pulled from m toward your n and not the other way around...Gravity would add to the kinetic energy dropping from above in the pancake scenario...this however does not always address if/how the core and other columns were stretched, cut, or strained.i

There is no drop of force! Only drop of mass m of section C a height h with acceleration g. Forces then develop between, in this case, a moving mass/structure M (upper section C) and a static mass/structure N (lower section A). These forces are a function of contact pressures/areas.

The hat truss is part of structure C but not in immediate contact with A at collision as there are many elements in C in between.

Gravity just apply the energy (m*g*h) input at impact. This energy then become forces that affect elements in C and A. The elements adjacent to the collision interface are affected most by these forces and the weakest may fail (or just deform elastically). The weakest elements are in section C. Deformation and failures require energy.

According my calculations (see http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm) the energy applied could only produce elastic deformation of A and C = a bounce of C. Reason? Gravity energy input was not very big.

If anything in A ... and C ... really fails, so that C can displace a distance h1 further down, evidently more potential energy is applied (m*g*h1) due gravity, and this extra energy becomes new forces affecting C and A. But as C is smaller and weaker than A, C will always be shredded to pieces before A.

The amount of loose pieces - rubble from C and A - is minimal and does not add any energy to the real collision. Just regard the rubble as parts of C and A all the time and you will understand.

[mynameis]

There is no drop of force! Only drop of mass m of section C a height h with acceleration g.

If anything in A ... and C ... really fails, so that C can displace a distance h1 further down, evidently more potential energy is applied (m*g*h1) due gravity, and this extra energy becomes new forces affecting C and A. But as C is smaller and weaker than A, C will always be shredded to pieces before A.

The amount of loose pieces - rubble from C and A - is minimal and does not add any energy to the real collision. Just regard the rubble as parts of C and A all the time and you will understand.

I gathered the way I think NIST presented their information, the mass of the upper portion came down or dropped force onto the lower portion with gravity adding it's own...Not to disagree with I think you're stating the lower portion of the building shouldn't have been obliterated as easy as it was in the collapse videos. In some ways the destruction is mutual, but the problem is the way the timing of the fall from the upper portion to the lower portion has no resistance as you state. Not that scenarios can be compared This is kind what I would expect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdNeaSgqcFg

[white horse]

An idiotic, uninformed post by a total ignoramus denying the existence of a plane observed by 100,000 people may be enjoyable reading for you, but you aren't learning anything from it.

Observed by how many?

I take it you mean on TV?

[stannrodd]

So you don't believe there were any explosions in the WTC towers, then!!

Tell us please, do you and John White receive your payslips from the same
office?

OK .. where did I refer to explosions in the towers and / or my belief in that ??

And what is the insinuation about being on a pay roll along with John White ??

How about you deal with those things first.

@ bryan

I have asked politely that you don't quote my posts at LetsRoll forums here .. you may refer to them by using a link to the topic .. if you feel it is relevant to the discussion here. But to use that text in the context of THIS thread is objectionable and as such have reported the offending post again.

Stann

[white horse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M

.

Well that's just fucking awesome!! Lol!

He's right about one thing tho - physics changed on 911 - well not physics per se, just or understanding of physics; which is why we have so many problems on tehse forums trying to use physics equations to win an argument cos the physics you learnt in hi school is a crock of shit!

Lol! All part of the illusion brother to keep us in the dark from the real truths of the cosmos!

[stannrodd]

He's right about one thing tho - physics changed on 911 - well not physics per se, just or understanding of physics; which is why we have so many problems on tehse forums trying to use physics equations to win an argument cos the physics you learnt in hi school is a crock of shit!

So he's right about one thing .. just one huh .. and that's awesome .. Huh ??

And that one thing is ... your understanding of physics changed .. is that what you are saying ?

Seems like you are saying that the physics you didn't learn at high school is a "crock of shit" .. because that's what you thought of physics then .. and still do.

Nothing has changed has it white horse. You didn't like it then and still don't like it.

Just like bryan.

He can't get to grips with collisions because he hasn't got the mental agility to involve his grey matter in anything more than his favourite fantasy.

That video is actually quite funny in a pathetic sort of way .. he probably chews tobacco too .. when he's not gasping on the wacky baccy in his boing !! :D !

I wonder if he made it out of primary school ?

Stann

[heiwa]

I gathered the way I think NIST presented their information, the mass of the upper portion came down or dropped force onto the lower portion with gravity adding it's own...

Well, you should not forget the great force that the lower, undamaged, steel structure applies on the upper structure. We are not talking house of cards but real steel, composite structures.
And do not forget that the mass of the upper portion consisted of 95% air with a uniform density of say 0.2 - like a bale of wool or cotton.
Cannot damage anything, really.

[helloperator]

goldenshower

[stannrodd]

Well, you should not forget the great force that the lower, undamaged, steel structure applies on the upper structure. We are not talking house of cards but real steel, composite structures.
And do not forget that the mass of the upper portion consisted of 95% air with a uniform density of say 0.2 - like a bale of wool or cotton.
Cannot damage anything, really.

Actually there is no force exerted upwards .. the building is always in vertical compression while in a stable state and though the structure is dynamic because of environmental effects such as wind etc .. and there are forces at work in all directions .. they are on average in equilibrium and as such there is no resultant force upward. The total mass exerts it's weight onto the building footprint.

In a collapse situation the lower section will have a resistance to the falling mass above, but this is different to the stable structure. The falling mass now gains kinetic energy derived from the potential energy placed in it during construction.

But it is my understanding, that at the 70th floor level the building had the structural adequacy to support the weight of another 110 storey building without failing.

I still maintain that the building was assisted into collapse by methods other than plane impacts and fires.

Stann

[tabea_blumenschein]

So, does that mean you WILL dare to confront Mackey on 'Hardfire'? Your lunacy about C never destroying A has been refuted from here to next week by the real engineers on the JREF. You have been exposed as ineducable and laughably wrong-headed.


Of course I will confront Mackey anywhere. Below is what can happen if C drops on A as per the Mackey model:

(etc)


Goldengoose:

If you're reading this, has Mr. Bjorkman actually agreed to appear on 'Hardfire' to debate Ryan Mackey or is this just bluster?

[heiwa]

Actually there is no force exerted upwards ..
Stann

Isn't it? A ball drops on a floor and bounces. Why, at contact with floor a dynamic force is applied on the ball and it displaces upwards. Newton's third law. This dynamic upward force is only applied, when there is contact ball/floor. Then the ball flies away and only gravity acts on the ball ... or all elements/masses making up the ball. Another Newton's law at work. The ball is in free fall! Funnily enough the ball free falls (!) upwards (!!!) a while according another Newton's law. More interesting - no forces are applied between the elements inside the ball during this flight in space. The ball structure is under zero stress. This condition remains unchanged until the ball contacts the floor again ... and bounces.
One reason why stannrood kan write down his ideas is an upward force acting on the brain keeping equilibrium.

[stannrodd]

Actually there is no force exerted upwards ..

.. this is true I said that, .. but you fail to include why I said that .. and the context in which it was said...


Your ongoing physics lesson is nothing short of gobbledygook .. grow up !

Regards
Stann

[slartibartfast]

Isn't it? A ball drops on a floor and bounces. Why, at contact with floor a dynamic force is applied on the ball and it displaces upwards. Newton's third law. This dynamic upward force is only applied, when there is contact ball/floor. Then the ball flies away and only gravity acts on the ball ... or all elements/masses making up the ball. Another Newton's law at work. The ball is in free fall! Funnily enough the ball free falls (!) upwards (!!!) a while according another Newton's law. More interesting - no forces are applied between the elements inside the ball during this flight in space. The ball structure is under zero stress. This condition remains unchanged until the ball contacts the floor again ... and bounces.
One reason why stannrood kan write down his ideas is an upward force acting on the brain keeping equilibrium.

Ok, try it with a solid steel ball...:rolleyes:

[heiwa]

.. this is true I said that, .. but you fail to include why I said that .. and the context in which it was said...


Your ongoing physics lesson is nothing short of gobbledygook .. grow up !

Regards
Stann

What always amazes me, when there is a technical problem, how many experts pop up with solutions. Take topic! Mackey Mouse's crush-down model and the Mackey physics lessons!

Mackey makes a proposal but it does not crush anything. Why is that, apart from scale problems and forces, &c?
For once, crush is not defined. Let's define it, e.g. one crush is to rip an element into two pieces. You need energy for that.
What kind of element? Let's say a joint of some kind (between a floor and a column?).
How do we do that? We shear it off! OK! How? And how much energy is required for that.
Where does the energy come from? Gravity! OK, a guillotine is a nice French invention to cut things - local crushing - them in two parts using gravity.
But can a guillotine be used for multiple crushes, etc, etc.? Probably not!

So we start again. What shall crush what? Aha, an upper part C of some kind shall crush some lower part A of some kind. What part? A building! OK, a part C of building shall crush another part A of same building. C is 1/10 A. C is dropped on A by gravity and A is crushed say 97 times into 97 pieces. So a one-way crush-down shall be able to produce 97 crushed pieces.

So how much energy is required to crush A 97 times in 97 pieces?

That should be very easy to calculate! Note that NIST and Mackey avoid this basic question like the pest!

Start to calculate how much energy is required to crush just one piece of A. Say it is X Joule. If it is less than X J, there is no crush - just a bounce.

Now, where does the energy come from? Yes, part C is dropped on A! That produces energy to crush one piece of A. Good!

Next calculate how much energy is required to crush two pieces of A. Is it 2X J ? Or 1.5 X J, Or still only 1 X J? In the latter case the crush-down goes by itself - a one-way crush down has started.

And so on! It is quite easy!

How much energy is required to crush A into 97 pieces? 97X J or only 1X J? Or somewhere in between. Maybe Y J energy?

A good engineer can calculate how much energy is required to crush A into 97 pieces! NIST avoids it. NIST says the energy is there and global collapse just happens.

However, we are better than NIST! We calculate Y. So now we know how much energy Y we must apply to crush A into 97 pieces.

Note - the word force is not mentioned anywhere so far. Just energy.

Next problem! Can part C apply Y J energy by gravity. Of course - it is just a question of drop height h!

Now, a serious problem/question! Can part C apply Y J without destroying itself?
That's an engineering problem. Structural engineering problem! Not a physics lesson!

OK, of course a good engineer can produce a part C that can apply Y J energy in a collision without damaging itself (or just negligibly). So part C becomes very strong (rigid!).

But ... now another problem. Part A shall be similar to part C! But if part A also becomes very strong (rigid), the amount of energy to crush A becomes enormous.

And that's the background of the Björkman Axiom of structures:

You cannot one-way crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure part A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on part A using gravity. Part C either bounces on part A or gets damaged in contact with part A and is stopped by part A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure part A doesn't matter the least. Part C of part A cannot destroy part A.

It has been suggested that a strong element in C, e.g. a column can damage a weak element in A, e.g. a floor, and that the weak A element then damages another weak A element, e.g. a floor/column joint that braces strong elements in A (read columns), and that that thes damagee will weaken the strong elements in A, so that the strong A elements then fail, when you load them with rubble. Thus the Björkman Axiom is not valid.
It is up to the reader to find the logical error in above suggestion.
If the reader still believes the suggestion is valid he should be able to produce a Mackey model that shows it. It has nothing to do with forces and scale. It is just a question of energy.

And C cannot apply the required energy on A. :)

[heiwa]

Ever tried Scotch ??

It helps you think straight.

Stann

Every day after 5 pm! Before that it's red wine. Just avoid driving your car at the same time.

[stannrodd]

I always try to avoid driving ..

G'nite

Stann

[bryan]

Ever tried Scotch ??

It helps you think straight.

Stann

You've been reported for trolling my thread.

If you can't stand the heat, keep out of the kitchen.

[bryan]

Can anybody make any sense out of the following observations based on posts in this thread?


Stann believes the towers were "assisted into collapse by methods other than plane impacts and fires".


Heiwa is arguing that plane impacts and fires alone could not have caused the collapse of the towers.

Therefore, Stann attacks heiwa, calling him a twit who posts gobbledegook and tripe.


On the other hand, tabea blumenschein is arguing that plane impacts and fires alone caused the collapse of the towers.

Therefore, Stann describes tabea blumenschein's comments as "impeccable".


Is this a new kind of logic?

If I'd gone to school, would I understand it? :confused:

[stannrodd]

The problem here bryan is that you don't understand the deeper meaning in the physics discussion.

The thread is about Physics and some of my comments are light hearted, but you wouldn't pick up on that .. because you don't understand physics.

Tabea has a good handle on what and how he explains the physics .. Heiwa has a different perspective and explains things in an unusual manner .. I also have a different way .. because I tend to deal with people like you rather than physicists and so avoid the maths demonstrations.

There's nothing at all wrong with agreeing with the physics of another .. but disagreeing with their point of view. The physics should be accurate and when it isn't .. the peer review process kicks in. But .. we can still all be friends at the end of the day and have a whiskey.

Perhaps you should get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat. I'm not here to intentionally piss you off pal .. if I piss you off it's your issue to deal with.

I deal with the issues of a thread in that thread .. unlike you who takes the issues all around the forum and cross posts all sorts of stuff to ruin the continuity of the place including taking posts from completely separate forums and using them in your posts for whatever reason takes your fancy.

Trolling isn't what I do.

Stann

[kooskoets]

The problem here bryan is that you don't understand the deeper meaning in the physics discussion.

The prob. is that you're trolling.
Walk away when the questions are clear and come back with a load of BS.



Trolling isn't what I do.

Stann

That is what you do.

Trying to make the prob. look difficult so people think they cannot undestand is very misleading and has a negative influence on the responses.

In fact you're only confusing things...not clearing up anything.
So....

[stannrodd]

Bollocks ..

If bryan doesn't understand physics he shouldn't start or participate in threads discussing physics.

I'm not here to hold his hand.

I'm here disputing the NPT .. using physics where it is necessary .. is that alright? There are two sides to a debate .. those for .. and those against.

Or is support for the NPT the only allowable discussion here?

I represent the opposing view. If you don't want to address the topic of the thread .. then clear off and do something else.. ??

This thread is inferring that Mackeys physics is demolished .. I refute that.

I answer all reasonable questions and consider most reasonable things.. but from the opposing view .. you may not like the answers .. but then you are on the other side of the fence. Not liking my answers is your problem not mine.

If I am having a negative effect on yours or anyone else's point of view regarding the NPT .. then I am doing what I have stated my intentions are.

I am being totally honest about my position.

You can join in the discussion from your perspective, but try doing it without attacking the member .. do it from a logical reasoning point of view and counter those things which you can show are dishonest or not true.

Show that your case is correct if you can.

Stann

[tabea_blumenschein]

The problem I have with Heiwa's analysis is that he's proposing something that nobody thinks actually happened on 9-11.

First, nobody thinks the collapse was exclusively "crush-down". As tfk very patiently explained in the post I linked to earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942), "crushing" happens in both directions -- for a short time. But after the collapse has progressed for a few floors, a thick layer of impacted debris has accumulated under the falling upper block, and then it does begin to function as a rigid structure, which means that the collapse shifts to "crush down" only. Please re-read tfk's post again carefully for more information.

Heiwa is also very wrong to look at the collapse as a static situation, i.e. that the upper block by itself is required to destroy everything beneath it. In reality, the collapse isn't a static situation but a dynamic one, where each time a floor fails, that floor's mass and gravitational potential energy are made available to assist in the destruction of more of the structure beneath it. To express it in Heiwa's style, the upper block, part C, begins as roughly 1/10 the mass of the structure beneath, part A. But to be accurate, we have to model part C as steadily increasing in mass while part A is steadily decreasing in mass, throughout the duration of the collapse. Heiwa doesn't seem to be thinking along these lines.

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4505611&postcount=1944) that Heiwa referred me to in regards to tfk's rebuttal of his "tripod" paper, Heiwa had this to say:

You see, it is impossible that a part of a structure (part C) can penetrate a bigger part of the same structure (part A) due to gravity alone and at say 0.7 g acceleration, leaving only 0.3 g*m force to plough throw the structure.

This left me absolutely flabbergasted. You can't take time and distance and work out an average acceleration from it and expect to learn anything in a case like this. You just can't.

Yes, the average acceleration, a, will be 0 < a < g regardless of how long it took the building to collapse. But during the collapse, the acceleration a was fluctuating wildly. Between floors, the upper block and the debris being swept along with it was accelerating downward at nearly 1g. But when impacting the next-lowest floor, the upper block was decelerating at multiple g's. This, of course, implies a load on the structure that is the same multiple of the upper block's weight.

If you haven't seen it yet, please take the time to read Dr. Manuel Garcia's Counterpunch article (http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html) regarding the physics of 9/11. Dr. Garcia walks the reader through a set of calculations that put the load on the structure for the first floor impact of 6.1x the weight of the upper block. In all candor, I'm not sure how Dr. Garcia arrived at his "delta-v" figure of 0.5 meters per second as he does not provide a derivation, but momentum transfer considerations seems like a likely answer.

Again, here is a simple little derivation from a webpage entitled Nutty 9/11 Physics: (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM)

If a story is 4 meters high, it will take an object about 0.9 seconds to fall one story, by which time it will be going 9 m/sec. So once the collapse starts, the overlying structure will be falling at 9 m/sec by the time it has fallen one story. If we crush the collapsing story into rubble half a meter thick and expect the collapse to stop at that point, what kinds of forces are involved? We go from 9 m/sec to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second. However, during that deceleration the velocity is decreasing, and the average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, or about 8 g's.

The physics-savvy reader might notice a subtle correction that needs to be made here. If no other forces were involved, the calculation would be fine the way it is. But because gravity is acting on the overlying structure, you have to add 1g to the acceleration, bringing it to 9 g's. And of course, the distance between floors wasn't quite 4 meters, but if you use 3.5 meters instead, that still gives you a figure of 8 g's.

That's why the average acceleration of 0.7 g's downward isn't useable. It doesn't tell us anything about the fluctuations in acceleration that we just discussed, which Heiwa seems to be oblivious to.

[goldengoose]

Goldengoose:

If you're reading this, has Mr. Bjorkman actually agreed to appear on 'Hardfire' to debate Ryan Mackey or is this just bluster?


No, the terribly confused Mr. Bjorkman would not dream of confronting Mackey on 'Hardfire.' I asked him if he would participate using a web cam or by phoning in. He babbled incoherently, but the bottom line is that he won't be exposing his lunacy to the scrutiny of a working scientist. He writes for children, you know.

Bjorkman has had his insane garble of basic physics shredded by several real engineers on the JREF over and over. He is ineducable. Mike Newman of NIST advised him to read an elementary physics text.

Bjorkman insists that dropping the top third of a 110-story onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two miles does not destroy the entire structure. He is, quite obviously, spectacularly, ludicrously, absurdly, fantastically WRONG.

Bjorkman plays an amusing little game. When you point out that his claim is utterly mad, he denies making it. When you proceed to produce several of posts of his proving that he has indeed made precisely that claim, he abruptly drops the denial and reverts to defending the idiocy.

[stannrodd]

A ball drops on a floor and bounces. Why, at contact with floor a dynamic force is applied on the ball and it displaces upwards. Newton's third law. This dynamic upward force is only applied, when there is contact ball/floor. Then the ball flies away and only gravity acts on the ball ... or all elements/masses making up the ball. Another Newton's law at work. The ball is in free fall! Funnily enough the ball free falls (!) upwards (!!!) a while according another Newton's law. More interesting - no forces are applied between the elements inside the ball during this flight in space. The ball structure is under zero stress. This condition remains unchanged until the ball contacts the floor again ... and bounces.

This example implies that the surface which the ball impacts is somehow dynamic and exerts a force.

The dynamic part of the whole thought experiment is the ball.

It's a very simple scenario. The ball is accelerating due to gravity .. is an elastic body which compresses during impact with the static floor .. therefore gaining potential energy (derived from the kinetic energy gained during the fall) which is released against the static floor and hence releases that potential energy in the form of kinetic energy to achieve the bounce.

Energy loss during the process of energy transfer could easily be calculated and the path of the elastic ball predicted.. given enough data, time and effort.

There is no upward force exerted as such .. or floors wouldn't be a safe place to put things.

The steel ball alternative suggested by slartiblartfast .. shows that the elastic ball plays the prominent role in the bounce .. not the floor. A Lead ball would demonstrate it quite well too.

Simplistic look (I know) at the comment from Heiwa but close enough for jazz !!

But I still think that the towers collapses was triggered by other events .. given the nature of the structures and the redundancy built into their design.

I enjoyed your post tabea.

Stann

[heiwa]

The problem I have with Heiwa's analysis is that he's proposing something that nobody thinks actually happened on 9-11.

First, nobody thinks the collapse was exclusively "crush-down". As tfk very patiently explained in the post I linked to earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942), "crushing" happens in both directions -- for a short time. But after the collapse has progressed for a few floors, a thick layer of impacted debris has accumulated under the falling upper block, and then it does begin to function as a rigid structure, which means that the collapse shifts to "crush down" only. Please re-read tfk's post again carefully for more information.

Heiwa is also very wrong to look at the collapse as a static situation, i.e. that the upper block by itself is required to destroy everything beneath it. In reality, the collapse isn't a static situation but a dynamic one, where each time a floor fails, that floor's mass and gravitational potential energy are made available to assist in the destruction of more of the structure beneath it. To express it in Heiwa's style, the upper block, part C, begins as roughly 1/10 the mass of the structure beneath, part A. But to be accurate, we have to model part C as steadily increasing in mass while part A is steadily decreasing in mass, throughout the duration of the collapse. Heiwa doesn't seem to be thinking along these lines.



Hm, I think you have misunderstood everything I say. So I will repeat it simply:

When upper, smaller and weaker section C contacts lower, bigger and stronger section A at a perfect impact, both sections evidently first compress elastically. And then something may break, e.g. support columns between floors. As the support columns above the impact area are weaker than the ones below, the columns in section C should fail first! In a collision of any kind always the weaker elements fail before the stronger ones, and, weak elements cannot crush or destroy stronger elements.
See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm for more details.
You see, a structure cannot be crushed down from top by itself + gravity.

What we see at WTC 1 on 911 is simply controlled demolition of the whole building. No doubt about it.

[heiwa]

No, the terribly confused Mr. Bjorkman would not dream of confronting Mackey on 'Hardfire.' I asked him if he would participate using a web cam or by phoning in. He babbled incoherently, but the bottom line is that he won't be exposing his lunacy to the scrutiny of a working scientist. He writes for children, you know.

Bjorkman has had his insane garble of basic physics shredded by several real engineers on the JREF over and over. He is ineducable. Mike Newman of NIST advised him to read an elementary physics text.

Bjorkman insists that dropping the top third of a 110-story onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two miles does not destroy the entire structure. He is, quite obviously, spectacularly, ludicrously, absurdly, fantastically WRONG.

Bjorkman plays an amusing little game. When you point out that his claim is utterly mad, he denies making it. When you proceed to produce several of posts of his proving that he has indeed made precisely that claim, he abruptly drops the denial and reverts to defending the idiocy.

Below correspondence with goldengoose/Ron Wieck:

Quote:

RW

... that C, while it is being crushed, does ...

Thanks! Ask Ryan to modify his model, &c, accordingly.

Re phone-in; normally TV companies send a team to interview me, &c. You see, I am just a source of data and observations, collection of info, analysis of same using my knowledge and particular experience, which I publish on my web site or transmit at conferences. My last appearance was in Estonia, November 2008, when I was invited to do just that. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/estnews.htm Very popular. Didn't cost them a krona. I do this pro bono since 1994. To improve safety at sea! Now it seems I do same ashore. Blowing up three big towers in NY on 9/11/2001 killing >3000 people! Crime of the century! You can quote me. The sect or mafia gang behind it is very dangerous. Ruthless. GWB and Condo just bowed to them. Powerful sect.

It's a pity you consider Richard Gage a liar and a fool. In my opinion Richard Gage is a very brave person doing a great job at AE911truth.org with his teams. Richard is very qualified in his fields architecture and building construction. A real American hero (+ teams).

kr

Anders Björkman
----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald Wieck
To: 'Anders Björkman'
Cc: Ryan Mackey
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey


Anders,



What you wrote is utter nonsense. Of course A is completely destroyed. Your intellectual peers, the children you write for, have no problem understanding that C, while it is being crushed, does indeed crush A.



I know you “explain” things in your papers, but no competent engineers agree with your explanations.



Are you willing to phone-in to ‘Hardfire’? I promise to be very nice to you.



Ron




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:10 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Cc: Ryan Mackey
Subject: Re: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey



RW



Pls, quote me right! Assume you drop C on A. Before C contacts A, C is evidently in free fall and does not affect A. When C contacts A, evidently a new equilibrium is established (before there was none at all) and the force F C applies on A equals the force -F A applies on C that is acting in the opposite direction. Don't blame me for it! It is Newton that established it.



Equilibrium is a state of balance - the scales are at equal height, F-F=0, etc. I know THAT is difficult to understand for some people.



But F is there, and so it also -F! And they produce deformations of A and C. These deformations may produce a bounce of C or local failures of both C and A. The latter is part of structural damage analysis. All explained in my papers.



NIST suggests that F destroys A immediately as A cannot absorb F as elastic deformations (A fails in 1000000's of pieces due lack of strain energy) but forgets that -F would destroy C prior to that, as C can absorb even less elastic deformation (A and C have same structure) and would be destroyed earlier. And when C is destroyed, it cannot apply a force F on A any longer. The rubble of C can produce many small forces on A, but they will not crush down A.



That's why Mackey cannot produce any structure or model, where C crushes A! A will always stop C! I look forward to Mackey admitting defeat.



Bazant & Co suggest in their 1-D model that F first crushes/shortens top part (read line) of A and that -F does not affect C as C is rigid (only subject to 'negligible damages'). Then there are subsequent drops/impacts and F is getting bigger and bigger, -F is forgotten, and line A is completely crushed/shortened into rubble (part B)! Then, suddenly, -F pops up in the rubble and crushes C. Sorry, my audience doesn't buy that.



Anyway, you misquoted me twice on Hardfire and you call my friends or admirers liars and fools and mindless. And I was not invited to participate. FYI, I am not afraid of a friendly discussion about basic physics, at,eg JREF as Heiwa or anywhere. Why would I? I am such a nice and helpful guy. Heiwa means Peace in Japanese.



So Heiwa with you!



AB







----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Wieck

To: 'Anders Björkman'

Cc: Ryan Mackey

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:52 PM

Subject: RE: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey



Anders,



Liars and fools ignore very specific corrections to their work provided by competent, highly qualified people.



You have stated that dropping the top third of a 110-story building onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two merely establishes “a new equilibrium.” You are absurdly wrong. Find another engineer who agrees with such nonsense.



Can I assume that you have no interest in defending your indefensible foolishness on ‘Hardfire’? You can appear on a webcam, or you can simply phone-in your contribution. Bear in mind, you will be facing Mackey.



Your mindless admirer Bill Smith thinks we are afraid to invite you. In reality, you are afraid to participate.



RW






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:59 AM
To: Ronald Wieck
Cc: Ryan Mackey; 'Mark Roberts'
Subject: Re: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey



RW (+cc - Gosh - you have added MR!)



Well, I have this balance with scales where I weigh my words. It comes useful when people say I have said X when I recall having said Y. Always something is missing! Maybe the persons have scale in their brains? Or they scale up their own importance? Remove the scales from your eyes, scale the barriers of ignorance and you may understand.



Do you always call anybody not agreeing with you liar and fool? Can't you use another scale?



kr



AB

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Wieck

To: 'Anders Björkman'

Cc: Ryan Mackey ; 'Mark Roberts'

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:48 PM

Subject: RE: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey



You have established a pattern. People remind you of absurd statements you’ve made; you deny making them; it is proved that you made them; you turn on a dime and proceed to defend the statements you denied making. Really, you need to pay attention to your own words.



Yes, MacQueen and Szamboti have been exposed as liars and fools.



You don’t understand anything about scale. Find another engineer who agrees with the nonsense you promote.



RW




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:00 AM
To: Ronald Wieck
Cc: Ryan Mackey
Subject: Re: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey



Well Ron and cc, it seems you have to start quoting me correctly. Misquoting is not good journalism. And Mark Roberts? Reliable source?



Is MacQueen & Szamboti liars and fools?



Anyway, propose a structure A, where a piece C of it, when dropped on A, crushes A (C = 1/10A). Any scale! Any size. Any structure. Then I will visit Brooklyn!



kr



Anders

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Wieck

To: 'Anders Björkman'

Cc: Ryan Mackey

Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:13 AM

Subject: RE: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey



I’m afraid not. Richard Gage is a liar and a fool. He was exposed and demolished by Mark Roberts. The frauds on his list are insignificant ciphers.



You’ll have to do much, much better.



Ron




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 6:44 PM
To: Ronald Wieck; garypopkin@yahoo.com
Cc: 'ryan mackey'
Subject: Re: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey



Ron,



Richard Gage & Co! Is it sufficient?



kr



Anders

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald Wieck

To: 'Anders Björkman' ; garypopkin@yahoo.com

Cc: 'ryan mackey'

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:08 PM

Subject: RE: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey



Anders,



Let us know when you find a physicist or engineer who agrees with you.



Ron




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Anders Björkman [mailto:anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:34 AM
To: garypopkin@yahoo.com
Cc: Ron Wieck; ryan mackey
Subject: Re: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey



Hello again + cc, hello folks,



thanks garypopkin for reply and understanding with regard to technical ability and offer not to visit Brooklyn. I once stayed there somewhere on the bluff overlooking Manhattan. Quite nice. And a brisk walk over the bridge and I was there - Manhattan - Ground Zero. Sorry, my next TV apperance will be on French channel FR3 Thalassa on Friday 15 May, at 20.35 hrs Paris time locally watched by millions of French people + unknown number overseas. No time for Brooklyn. With right sat or cable gear + monitor you may see me then at Brooklyn. But it will be in French.



Kind regards



Anders

----- Original Message -----

From: gary popkin

To: Anders Björkman

Cc: Ron Wieck ; ryan mackey

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:54 PM

Subject: Re: Hardfire: Physics of 9/11 - Part III - Ryan Mackey



Thank you for watching Hardfire and for taking the time to write. I understand your point that there would be damage to the upper, falling piece of the building, that should be considered.

I have no technical ability to evaluate any claims on any side of this issue. If you would like to appear on Hardfire to elaborate upon your claims, I'm sure we can arrange a suitable format for you. As you can see, you need not appear in our studio in Brooklyn. Instead, you can call in and talk with the studio while you simultaneously record video and audio with a camcorder at your location, and send me the tape for editing.


--- On Thu, 3/26/09, Anders Björkman <anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr> wrote:



One conclusion from that is, assuming that C doesn’t bounce on A, that part C will be damaged before part A, simply because part C is smaller than A and cannot absorb the energy applied to it by elastic strain energy (force F times displacement) without destroying itself.

[tabea_blumenschein]

This example implies that the surface which the ball impacts is somehow dynamic and exerts a force.

The dynamic part of the whole thought experiment is the ball.

It's a very simple scenario. The ball is accelerating due to gravity .. is an elastic body which compresses during impact with the static floor .. therefore gaining potential energy (derived from the kinetic energy gained during the fall) which is released against the static floor and hence releases that potential energy in the form of kinetic energy to achieve the bounce.

Energy loss during the process of energy transfer could easily be calculated and the path of the elastic ball predicted.. given enough data, time and effort.

There is no upward force exerted as such .. or floors wouldn't be a safe place to put things.

The steel ball alternative suggested by slartiblartfast .. shows that the elastic ball plays the prominent role in the bounce .. not the floor. A Lead ball would demonstrate it quite well too.

Simplistic look (I know) at the comment from Heiwa but close enough for jazz !!

But I still think that the towers collapses was triggered by other events .. given the nature of the structures and the redundancy built into their design.

I enjoyed your post tabea.

Stann

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. :)

There is no upward force exerted as such .. or floors wouldn't be a safe place to put things.

Begging your pardon, but aren't you forgetting about the normal force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force) exerted by the floor?

In physics, the normal force Fn (or in some books N) is the component, perpendicular to the surface of contact, of the contact force exerted by, for example, the surface of a floor or wall, on an object, preventing the object from entering the floor or wall. In a static situation it is just enough to balance the force with which the object pushes, e.g. its weight on the floor, or a smaller force if somebody leans against a wall. If an object hits the surface with some speed, the normal force provides for a rapid negative acceleration, depending on how flexible the floor/wall is (and, of course, if it can provide enough force for stopping the object instead of breaking). Also, if the object is soft, only the outer part needs to decelerate rapidly, the inner part can do that more gradually, while the layer in between is compressed.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Hm, I think you have misunderstood everything I say. So I will repeat it simply:

When upper, smaller and weaker section C contacts lower, bigger and stronger section A at a perfect impact, both sections evidently first compress elastically. And then something may break, e.g. support columns between floors. As the support columns above the impact area are weaker than the ones below, the columns in section C should fail first! In a collision of any kind always the weaker elements fail before the stronger ones, and, weak elements cannot crush or destroy stronger elements.
See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm for more details.
You see, a structure cannot be crushed down from top by itself + gravity.

What we see at WTC 1 on 911 is simply controlled demolition of the whole building. No doubt about it.

(emphasis mine - TB)



Heiwa, do you see that sentence I bolded? The one that says that in a collision of any kind weaker elements always fail before stronger ones?

By that logic, an iceberg could never have sunk the titanic. Steel is a stronger element than ice, right?

[bryan]

Trolling isn't what I do.


Troll or peer reviewer?

It's hilarious reading some of the tripe expounded by twits .. I never quite realized how the deep this shite went.



Your ongoing physics lesson is nothing short of gobbledygook .. grow up !



Ever tried Scotch ??

It helps you think straight.


(All taken from this thread)



I'm here disputing the NPT .. using physics where it is necessary .. is that alright? There are two sides to a debate .. those for .. and those against.

Or is support for the NPT the only allowable discussion here?

I represent the opposing view. If you don't want to address the topic of the thread .. then clear off and do something else.. ??

This thread is inferring that Mackeys physics is demolished .. I refute that.
Stann

The topic of this thread is the alleged crush-down of the towers. Mackey's views on the alleged plane crashes are not being discussed here.

[stannrodd]

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. :)



Begging your pardon, but aren't you forgetting about the normal force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_force) exerted by the floor?

The lead ball v the elastic ball .. I thought was sufficient to negate that issue from the obvious bouncing ball analogy Heiwa was espousing for other effect.

You are right though ..

Swings and merry go rounds stuff .. at high school level.

Stann

[stannrodd]

Bryan you are off topic !!

Stann

[bryan]

Back on topic!



If a story is 4 meters high, it will take an object about 0.9 seconds to fall one story, by which time it will be going 9 m/sec. So once the collapse starts, the overlying structure will be falling at 9 m/sec by the time it has fallen one story. If we crush the collapsing story into rubble half a meter thick and expect the collapse to stop at that point, what kinds of forces are involved? We go from 9 m/sec to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second. However, during that deceleration the velocity is decreasing, and the average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, or about 8 g's.
The physics-savvy reader might notice a subtle correction that needs to be made here. If no other forces were involved, the calculation would be fine the way it is. But because gravity is acting on the overlying structure, you have to add 1g to the acceleration, bringing it to 9 g's. And of course, the distance between floors wasn't quite 4 meters, but if you use 3.5 meters instead, that still gives you a figure of 8 g's.

The reader with a bit of common sense might wonder how 283 steel columns could suddenly lose a 3.5 metre chunk from the middle of their length, all at the same level.

Jet fuel?



Bjorkman insists that dropping the top third of a 110-story onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two miles does not destroy the entire structure. He is, quite obviously, spectacularly, ludicrously, absurdly, fantastically WRONG.

I have a question for NASA.

If the top 13 floors of WTC 1 were dropped on the remaining 97 floors from a height of 2 miles, in what way would the damage be more extensive, when compared to the aftermath of the alleged 12ft drop seen on 9/11?

Would the concrete be pulverised into finer particles? Would the steel beams be thrown for miles, instead of just hundreds of feet? Would the collapse time be 2 seconds instead of 12 seconds?

How would we know, just from watching the videos and examining the rubble, that the upper block had been dropped from a height of 2 miles and not just 12ft?


This example implies that the surface which the ball impacts is somehow dynamic and exerts a force.

The dynamic part of the whole thought experiment is the ball.

There is no upward force exerted as such .. or floors wouldn't be a safe place to put things.

The steel ball alternative suggested by slartiblartfast .. shows that the elastic ball plays the prominent role in the bounce .. not the floor. A Lead ball would demonstrate it quite well too.


Newton explains it well:


Third law
Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line. This law is often simplified into the sentence, "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

[heiwa]

Heiwa, do you see that sentence I bolded? The one that says that in a collision of any kind weaker elements always fail before stronger ones?

By that logic, an iceberg could never have sunk the titanic. Steel is a stronger element than ice, right?

??? I talk about two similar composite structures with weak and strong elements that collide. The iceberg is an isotropic structure - of many uniform elements or just one big element (frozen water) - and the ship is a steel structure with many weak and strong elements. Evidently the weakest element in the steel structure has no chance.

[heiwa]

Bjorkman insists that dropping the top third of a 110-story onto the bottom two-thirds from a height of two miles does not destroy the entire structure. He is, quite obviously, spectacularly, ludicrously, absurdly, fantastically WRONG.



And Bjorkman never said that! He said that the forces applied on both objects at contact were same but opposite regardless of drop height and that the top part would probably be destroyed by the force applied on it, i.e. no one-way crush down would take place.

Take a meteorite (top part) dropping on Earth (bottom part) from space. It seems the meteorite is destroyed and there is only a scratch on Earth. Same principle at work.

[supersmell]

The scratch left by a meteorite is considerably larger than the meteorite itself.

[goldengoose]

And Bjorkman never said that! He said that the forces applied on both objects at contact were same but opposite regardless of drop height and that the top part would probably be destroyed by the force applied on it, i.e. no one-way crush down would take place.

Take a meteorite (top part) dropping on Earth (bottom part) from space. It seems the meteorite is destroyed and there is only a scratch on Earth. Same principle at work.



Bjorkman is, as usual, lying. He said exactly that, AS YOU KNOW.

Yes, the top part would undoubtedly be destroyed, but, as every real engineer in the world understands, SO WOULD THE BOTTOM PART!

[goldengoose]

[QUOTE=heiwa;919354]Below correspondence with goldengoose/Ron Wieck:


Bjorkman reproduces our e-mail correspondence. Now, does anybody know if he intends to confront Mackey on 'Hardfire'?

How can you tell?

[goldengoose]

Anders Bjorkman has established a reputation as a man who will make nonsensical statements, deny making them, and then defend them after it has been proved that he made them. Bjorkman has once again tried pretending that he didn't make his lunatic claim about what happens to the entire structure when you drop a third of a building onto the bottom two-thirds from a great height. He has often attempted such deceptions on the JREF, but he always gets caught when people show him his own words. Let's catch him again.

Here is an exchange posted on the JREF in July 2008 (I am "pomeroo"):

Originally Posted by pomeroo:

We'll continue our "Physics for Psychotics" dialogue. If I remove the 109th floor, the 110th floor drops neatly and quietly on the 108th, causing no strain on the load-bearing capacity. If I drop the 81st through the 110th floors on the 80th, it is EXACTLY THE SAME THING--RIGHT????
The crush-up completely balances the crush-down? Really?

If I magically lift the 110th floor two miles above the 109th and drop it, a "new equilibrium" is quickly reached and no damage is done, right? Crush-up equals crush-down, RIGHT? If I drop the top thirty floors on the bottom eighty from a height of two miles, THEY ESTABLISH A "NEW EQUILIBRIUM," RIGHT??????

"HEIWA" replied:
According Isaac Newton 1687 - yes! Verified several times since.

[heiwa]

Bjorkman is, as usual, lying. He said exactly that, AS YOU KNOW.

Yes, the top part would undoubtedly be destroyed, but, as every real engineer in the world understands, SO WOULD THE BOTTOM PART!

Good, you agree that the top part would be destroyed. According Mackey that is not so.

And, if the top part structure only drops 3.7 meter (in lieu of two miles), then only the top part structure is damaged. Evidently a little top part structure cannot crush a big structure. It is physically impossible. Except if you are an NWO-physisist.

[goldengoose]

Heiwa, do you see that sentence I bolded? The one that says that in a collision of any kind weaker elements always fail before stronger ones?

By that logic, an iceberg could never have sunk the titanic. Steel is a stronger element than ice, right?


Tabea, unless you've spent time on the JREF forum, you can't begin to imagine the scope and depth of Bjorkman's ("Heiwa") incompetence. Check out his greatest hits:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

[heiwa]

Anders Bjorkman has established a reputation as a man who will make nonsensical statements, deny making them, and then defend them after it has been proved that he made them. Bjorkman has once again tried pretending that he didn't make his lunatic claim about what happens to the entire structure when you drop a third of a building onto the bottom two-thirds from a great height. He has often attempted such deceptions on the JREF, but he always gets caught when people show him his own words. Let's catch him again.

Here is an exchange posted on the JREF in July 2008 (I am "pomeroo"):

Originally Posted by pomeroo:

We'll continue our "Physics for Psychotics" dialogue. If I remove the 109th floor, the 110th floor drops neatly and quietly on the 108th, causing no strain on the load-bearing capacity. If I drop the 81st through the 110th floors on the 80th, it is EXACTLY THE SAME THING--RIGHT????
The crush-up completely balances the crush-down? Really?

If I magically lift the 110th floor two miles above the 109th and drop it, a "new equilibrium" is quickly reached and no damage is done, right? Crush-up equals crush-down, RIGHT? If I drop the top thirty floors on the bottom eighty from a height of two miles, THEY ESTABLISH A "NEW EQUILIBRIUM," RIGHT??????

"HEIWA" replied:
According Isaac Newton 1687 - yes! Verified several times since.

Yes - when the 110th floor, after a two miles drop, contacts the 109 floors structure below, and applies a force on the 109th floor, the 109th floor applies exactly the same force on the 110th floor. Basic physics.

Same if you drop 30 floors on 80.

Sad that NIST doesn't know that!

If damage occurs is another matter. If both parts are rigid as assumed in solid mechancis, no part is damaged. In real world, both object are non rigid or elastic, the matter is subject to structural damage analysis, that NIST doesn't know anything about either.

Then there might be a bounce. Or there may be structural failures. All explained on my web site.

[goldengoose]

Good, you agree that the top part would be destroyed. According Mackey that is not so.

And, if the top part structure only drops 3.7 meter (in lieu of two miles), then only the top part structure is damaged. Evidently a little top part structure cannot crush a big structure. It is physically impossible. Except if you are an NWO-physisist.



Stop lying about Mackey and repeating your insane gibberish. The real engineers have handed you your empty head. Everyone in the world understands that the entire structure--top and bottom--gets reduced to rubble.

[heiwa]

Stop lying about Mackey and repeating your insane gibberish. The real engineers have handed you your empty head. Everyone in the world understands that the entire structure--top and bottom--gets reduced to rubble.

I was just quoting Newton. Ever heard about him?

[goldengoose]

Yes - when the 110th floor, after a two miles drop, contacts the 109 floors structure below, and applies a force on the 109th floor, the 109th floor applies exactly the same force on the 110th floor. Basic physics.

Sad that NIST doesn't know that!



It's not only NIST. Every physicist in the world doesn't know that. They don't know it because it's insanely false.


Let's keep in mind how you ran away when I posed the following question, a difficult one for you, but not for the children in your audience: If someone taps me lightly on the chin with his finger, nothing happens. If he winds up and slams his fist into my chin with all the force he can generate, uh, something different happens. Why should that be the case, given that my chin always produces an equal countervailing force? Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. In view of your manifest incompetence and inability to learn, I should not assume that you realize that the result in the second instance is really different. Do you?

[heiwa]

It's not only NIST. Every physicist in the world doesn't know that. They don't know it because it's insanely false.


Let's keep in mind how you ran away when I posed the following question, a difficult one for you, but not for the children in your audience: If someone taps me lightly on the chin with his finger, nothing happens. If he winds up and slams his fist into my chin with all the force he can generate, uh, something different happens. Why should that be the case, given that my chin always produces an equal countervailing force? Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. In view of your manifest incompetence and inability to learn, I should not assume that you realize that the result in the second instance is really different. Do you?

Whatever - you just prove you haven't got a clue of basic physics. But I like the idea someone slamming a fist in your face. Yes, your face produces a force that equals that of the fist. Hardface physics!

[goldengoose]

Whatever - you just prove you haven't got a clue of basic physics. But I like the idea someone slamming a fist in your face. Yes, your face produces a force that equals that of the fist. Hardface physics!



Really? I believe you've made a horse's ass of yourself again. C'mon, you incompetent, tell us what the difference is between tapping my chin and punching it. Yes, my chin always produces an equal force. Tell us why nothing happens in the first instance, and I get knocked out in the second. We all get the idea that the forces always balance. WHY ARE THE TWO RESULTS DIFFERENT?

Are you really so stupid that you can't see the hopeless muddle you've created for yourself?

[white horse]

... If I could just but in here a mo... part of the problem with this type of circus merry-go-round is the physics you are trying to use is inherently flawed!

Check out Tesla and why TEsla destroys all of standard textbook physics, whic the PTB are clinging onto as much as they can cos it suits them at the moement.

Do you think they would want smart college kids knowing the real physics that they are using in black projects? Hell no!

Don't have any answers for you - but bear in mind that those numebrs in those high school books don't exactly translate to real world - Chaos theory should have highlighted that for you! :eek:

[bryan]

Everyone in the world understands that the entire structure--top and bottom--gets reduced to rubble.

But the entire structure--top and bottom--got reduced to rubble on 9/11, when the upper block was only dropped from 12ft. So what difference would it make if you dropped it from 2 miles?

[goldengoose]

But the entire structure--top and bottom--got reduced to rubble on 9/11, when the upper block was only dropped from 12ft. So what difference would it make if you dropped it from 2 miles?


Yes, the whole structure DID get destroyed on 9/11. Real engineers and physicists have calculated the forces involved and have demonstrated that they were far in excess of what was required. Bjorkman gets hammered regularly on the JREF by engineers who demand that he show his own calculations that overturn what every serious researcher has concluded. Bjorkman can't calculate ANYTHING.

Why do you suppose he won't ever respond to the simple question I asked? What is the difference between being tapped on the chin and being hit hard? Careful, now: once you enter reality and point out that F=MA, the greater acceleration INCREASES the force, Bjorkman's mad garble of basic physics is exposed as the embarrassing nonsense it is.

[goldengoose]

... If I could just but in here a mo... part of the problem with this type of circus merry-go-round is the physics you are trying to use is inherently flawed!

Check out Tesla and why TEsla destroys all of standard textbook physics, whic the PTB are clinging onto as much as they can cos it suits them at the moement.

Do you think they would want smart college kids knowing the real physics that they are using in black projects? Hell no!

Don't have any answers for you - but bear in mind that those numebrs in those high school books don't exactly translate to real world - Chaos theory should have highlighted that for you! :eek:


You are clueless. Tesla has nothing to do with the impact of a plane into a building.

[heiwa]

Really? I believe you've made a horse's ass of yourself again. C'mon, you incompetent, tell us what the difference is between tapping my chin and punching it. Yes, my chin always produces an equal force. Tell us why nothing happens in the first instance, and I get knocked out in the second. We all get the idea that the forces always balance. WHY ARE THE TWO RESULTS DIFFERENT?

Are you really so stupid that you can't see the hopeless muddle you've created for yourself?

It is quite possible to express a view and counter an argument without resorting to abuse and personal attacks, in fact the latter is often a cover for a lack of credible evidence.

Good that you finally agree that the forces are always equal but opposite between two objects in contact, whether dynamic or static, and thus, that you accept Newton. Very good. Forget the NWO stuff!

What happens then is only a function of what these forces do to the two objects or rather structures in question.

As topic is Mackey physics and his infamous Hardfire presentation with you behind the mug, I suggest that the forces acting on M (upper part) and m (top of lower part with another 96 m behind it) at contact destroys a weak element in the M structure above and that m and all elements below m will not be damaged at all but only compress elastically = no one-way crush down = immediate arrest of destruction except further failures in M above.

One conclusion from this is that WTC 1 could not have been one-way crushed down by its upper structure as suggested by Bazant.

Another observation is that WTC 1 structure is destroyed by something else than gravity forces.

This, and more, I point out in my paper submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 2 February 2009, accepted by them and then sent for peer review, &c. ASCE has on 8 April, 2009, informed that this is still going on.

FYI, I have attended as speaker numerous conferences of all kinds (incl. UN) the past 20 years, I have published papers in scientific magazines and newspapers since 1969, I have participated in TV programs, &c, and, I have to say, I have a very good reputation of providing correct facts and figures. Highly appreciated by my supporters of which there are many. My web site - about safety at sea - is quite popular - >5 000 visitors/month since many years.

Sorry Ron! I think you have made a horse ass of yourself, as you say. Not my language, though.

[goldengoose]

It is quite possible to express a view and counter an argument without resorting to abuse and personal attacks, in fact the latter is often a cover for a lack of credible evidence.

Good that you finally agree that the forces are always equal but opposite between two objects in contact, whether dynamic or static, and thus, that you accept Newton. Very good. Forget the NWO stuff!

What happens then is only a function of what these forces do to the two objects or rather structures in question.

As topic is Mackey physics and his infamous Hardfire presentation with you behind the mug, I suggest that the forces acting on M (upper part) and m (top of lower part with another 96 m behind it) at contact destroys a weak element in the M structure above and that m and all elements below m will not be damaged at all but only compress elastically = no one-way crush down = immediate arrest of destruction except further failures in M above.

One conclusion from this is that WTC 1 could not have been one-way crushed down by its upper structure as suggested by Bazant.

Another observation is that WTC 1 structure is destroyed by something else than gravity forces.

This, and more, I point out in my paper submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 2 February 2009, accepted by them and then sent for peer review, &c. ASCE has on 8 April, 2009, informed that this is still going on.

FYI, I have attended as speaker numerous conferences of all kinds (incl. UN) the past 20 years, I have published papers in scientific magazines and newspapers since 1969, I have participated in TV programs, &c, and, I have to say, I have a very good reputation of providing correct facts and figures. Highly appreciated by my supporters of which there are many. My web site - about safety at sea - is quite popular - >5 000 visitors/month since many years.

Sorry Ron! I think you have made a horse ass of yourself, as you say. Not my language, though.


Can you write a sentence without telling a lie? EVERYONE AGREES THAT THE FORCES BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS IN CONTACT ARE EQUAL. NOBODY HAS EVER SAID OTHERWISE. WHY ARE YOU PRETENDING THAT YOU HAD TO PERSUADE PEOPLE OF THE VALIDITY OF A BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND FAR BETTER THAN YOU DO?

You are a laughingstock among real engineers. The ACSE journal did not "accept" your worthless tripe. You submitted it, and it will be rejected. You will do your best to conceal that fact. Ultimately, you will claim that you are the victim of another NWO conspiracy.

Your insistence on the indestructibility of the lower portion of the tower is indefensible nonsense. The real engineers on the JREF have taken you apart over and over. You can't produce any calculations to support your ridiculous arguments.

Tell us the difference between tapping someone on the chin and punching him hard. WHY IS THERE A DIFFERENCE?

[bryan]

Yes, the whole structure DID get destroyed on 9/11. Real engineers and physicists have calculated the forces involved and have demonstrated that they were far in excess of what was required.

Then the result will be exactly the same whether the upper block is dropped from 12ft, 120ft, 1 mile, 2 miles or 12 miles.

What if the upper block was dropped from 2ft? Would the lower block be destroyed? The real engineers and physicists shouldn't have any problem working that one out if they've already done the calculations for a drop of 12ft.



What is the difference between being tapped on the chin and being hit hard?


It's like the difference between being dropped on from a height of 12ft and being dropped on from a height of 2 miles!

[goldengoose]

then the result will be exactly the same whether the upper block is dropped from 12ft, 120ft, 1 mile, 2 miles or 12 miles.

What if the upper block was dropped from 2ft? Would the lower block be destroyed? The real engineers and physicists shouldn't have any problem working that one out if they've already done the calculations for a drop of 12ft.


Yes, you are correct: real engineers can easily work out that problem.

No, Bjorkman is absurdly wrong that the distance doesn't matter. That much should be obvious even to you.


it's like the difference between being dropped on from a height of 12ft and being dropped on from a height of 2 miles!

Wrong, as usual. NOTICE HOW THIS VERY SIMPLE QUESTION COMPLETELY EXPOSES THE LUNACY BJORKMAN IS PEDDLING.

[bryan]

No, Bjorkman is absurdly wrong that the distance doesn't matter. That much should be obvious even to you. Wrong, as usual. NOTICE HOW THIS VERY SIMPLE QUESTION COMPLETELY EXPOSES THE LUNACY BJORKMAN IS PEDDLING.

It's you who's saying the distance doesn't matter. If the whole building is destroyed by a drop from 12ft, how can it be destroyed more by a drop from 2 miles?

[goldengoose]

It's you who's saying the distance doesn't matter. If the whole building is destroyed by a drop from 12ft, how can it be destroyed more by a drop from 2 miles?

Sorry, wrong answer.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Tabea, unless you've spent time on the JREF forum, you can't begin to imagine the scope and depth of Bjorkman's ("Heiwa") incompetence. Check out his greatest hits:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

I visit the JREF 9/11 conspiracy theories section regularly, and what I can't begin to imagine is why the smart people there are still wasting their time with Heiwa when it's obvious he suffers from what Ryan Mackey has termed irreducible delusion. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389&highlight=irreducible+delusion) Heiwa's own thread, The Heiwa Challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715), offers ample proof of this.

It's also telling that Heiwa made no attempt to answer my question.

Heiwa: Ship vs. iceberg. Stronger element (steel) vs. weaker element (ice). How does your "collision theory" explain the damage done by the iceberg to the ship?

EDIT: I see that Heiwa did attempt to answer my question. I missed it because it was at the bottom of a page.

He called the iceberg an "isotropic structure." Funny, I think he was calling the upper block (his "part C") the same thing a while ago at the JREF forums. I'll go give the forum search function a workout ...

[tabea_blumenschein]

It's you who's saying the distance doesn't matter. If the whole building is destroyed by a drop from 12ft, how can it be destroyed more by a drop from 2 miles?

Drop the upper block from two miles and it will hit the structure at its terminal velocity. More momentum, more kinetic energy, greater destruction.

What if the upper block was dropped from 2ft? Would the lower block be destroyed? The real engineers and physicists shouldn't have any problem working that one out if they've already done the calculations for a drop of 12ft.

If you won't accept the engineering community's opinion regarding a 12 foot drop, why should we expect you to accept their opinion regarding a 2 foot drop?

You won't accept one set of answers, yet you ask those same experts to provide another! Very strange ...

[goldengoose]

oh ye those guys that claims that newtons laws dont exist because there is none in the videos.
crash and collapse

yorue the ones thats telling jokes but were all laughing so its ok.


NIST consulted with a thousand structural engineers, fire safety experts, physicists, metallurgists, demolition professionals, and materials scientists. All of them understand Newton's laws far better than you do. I'd recommend less laughing and more reading, but you'd be drummed out of the fantasy movement if you took my advice.

[goldengoose]

I visit the JREF 9/11 conspiracy theories section regularly, and what I can't begin to imagine is why the smart people there are still wasting their time with Heiwa when it's obvious he suffers from what Ryan Mackey has termed irreducible delusion. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389&highlight=irreducible+delusion) Heiwa's own thread, The Heiwa Challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715), offers ample proof of this.

It's also telling that Heiwa made no attempt to answer my question.

Heiwa: Ship vs. iceberg. Stronger element (steel) vs. weaker element (ice). How does your "collision theory" explain the damage done by the iceberg to the ship?

EDIT: I see that Heiwa did attempt to answer my question. I missed it because it was at the bottom of a page.

He called the iceberg an "isotropic structure." Funny, I think he was calling the upper block (his "part C") the same thing a while ago at the JREF forums. I'll go give the forum search function a workout ...

Bjorkman professes to be an engineer, yet he really can't explain why a tap on the chin is not the same as a power punch. I suspect he realizes why there is a difference, but the explanation is deadly for his fantasy.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Just did some searching over at the JREF forums.

Heiwa's Axiom: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4598721&postcount=84)

You cannot one-way crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure part A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on part A using gravity. Part C either bounces on part A or gets damaged in contact with part A and is stopped by part A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure part A doesn't matter the least. Part C of part A cannot destroy part A.

Okay, that clears things up for me. Heiwa was probably thinking of lemons or rubber balls or something. He thinks those are good analogies ... :rolleyes:

??? I talk about two similar composite structures with weak and strong elements that collide. The iceberg is an isotropic structure - of many uniform elements or just one big element (frozen water) - and the ship is a steel structure with many weak and strong elements. Evidently the weakest element in the steel structure has no chance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Heiwa, but that would still be ice damaging steel, wouldn't it?

[stannrodd]

Bouncing Balls bounce because they were designed that way..

Icebergs versus ships is about the interaction of the forces in the collision.

Icebergs can win given the forces involved .. it wasn't helpful that the Titanic had a shit .. pig iron/steel alloy hull.. !

Similarly the plane versus tower facade is about which force will overwhelm the other.

The fact that the planes did actually penetrate the towers is conclusive that the maths and physics is correct.

It's not a soft V hard thing .. it's a larger force versus a smaller resistance+normal force thing.. ;)

Stann :)

ps no plane theory is dead = We love Dave

[heiwa]

EDIT: I see that Heiwa did attempt to answer my question. I missed it because it was at the bottom of a page.

He called the iceberg an "isotropic structure." Funny, I think he was calling the upper block (his "part C") the same thing a while ago at the JREF forums. I'll go give the forum search function a workout ...

No, I never called upper part C an isotropic structure! It is a composite structure in the Mackey Mouse example. Like part A - the lower structure. Also a composite structure.

Part A has same structure as part C! And when similar structures collide, well, both are affected.

Not according to Mackey, NIST, Bazant & Co. Then only part A is affected! One-way crush down! Reason? Part C is rigid according Mackey, NIST, Bazant & Co and the NWO lot. Part C has not same structure as part A according NWO physics.

It is quite easy to demolish Mackey Mouse Physics. I do it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .

[heiwa]

It's not a soft V hard thing .. it's a larger force versus a smaller resistance+normal force thing.. ;)

Stann :)



Forces are same (equilibrium) and applied to elastic structures the weaker elements fail first and the situation changes. If forces are different on a structure (no equilibrium), the structure simply flies away.

[stannrodd]

Forces can be different YES, .. but the resultant force can be in or out of equilibrium during a collision.

The big vector wins OK !!

It would be useful if you could keep your physics on topic rather than delving into obscure analogies to indulge in one upmanship.

Thanks

Stann :)

[bryan]

Drop the upper block from two miles and it will hit the structure at its terminal velocity. More momentum, more kinetic energy, greater destruction.


Back to the same unanswered question:

In what way would there have been greater destruction at the WTC if the upper block had been dropped from two miles? Was there not total destruction after a 12ft drop?



If you won't accept the engineering community's opinion regarding a 12 foot drop, why should we expect you to accept their opinion regarding a 2 foot drop?

You won't accept one set of answers, yet you ask those same experts to provide another! Very strange ...

Very strange that the level of destruction depends on the height of the drop, yet the damage is total even after a short drop. How short does the drop have to be to avoid global collapse?


he really can't explain why a tap on the chin is not the same as a power punch.

Try punching an elephant hard.

Did the elephant fall over?

Why not?



that would still be ice damaging steel, wouldn't it?

What happens when a big iceberg collides with a little iceberg?



It's not a soft V hard thing .. it's a larger force versus a smaller resistance+normal force thing.. ;)


Stann's third law of motion says: "Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with not necessarily the same magnitude in the opposite direction"..



The fact that the planes did actually penetrate the towers is conclusive that the maths and physics is correct.


Do the maths and physics prove the fact? Or does the fact prove the maths and physics?

Which comes first? The chicken or the egg?

Off topic, anyway.

[heiwa]

Forces can be different YES, .. but the resultant force can be in or out of equilibrium during a collision.

The big vector wins OK !!

It would be useful if you could keep your physics on topic rather than delving into obscure analogies to indulge in one upmanship.

Thanks

Stann :)

Contact forces on objects are always equal and in equilibrium. These forces may just keep objects in place, deform the objects or their elements, damage them, send them off in new directions, &c.

Forces acting on loose elements (rubble?, complete top part, both in free fall!) not in contact with anyting else just accelerate them.

There is no winner.

[supersmell]

I don't think equilibrium is the right term for what the equal and opposite forces result in. If either object accelerates then there there isn't any equilibrium.

[heiwa]

I don't think equilibrium is the right term for what the equal and opposite forces result in. If either object accelerates then there there isn't any equilibrium.

There is according Newton using his term - at contact. There isn't according NWO physics post 911 2001 adopted by NIST.

According NWO post 911 physics recently, when a small object C drops (accelerates!) on and impacts a much bigger but static object A, then C applies an enormous force F on A at contact = crush down of A.

According Newton there is also object A that applies another, the same, enormous force -F on C at contact = destruction of C, before C can destroy A, because C<A.

Supersmell, can you provide any examples, balanced or not, of little C crushing A before and after 911?

Advice - do not drop anything C because you can destroy the whole world A if you believe NWO physics.

[supersmell]

I'd assume if you made a 10 layer cake with frosting between each layer, and then dropped a 3 layer identical cake on top of it frosting would shoot out from the lower cake. But this isn't really a field that I've studied so I'd probably make a fool out of myself if I really got into an argument.

There is according Newton using his term - at contact. There isn't according NWO physics post 911 2001 adopted by NIST.
I suppose if you take the lower body as rigid that there is equilibrium at contact, but if the lower tower gets compressed at all then there is some acceleration so there is no equilibrium.

[goldengoose]

There is according Newton using his term - at contact. There isn't according NWO physics post 911 2001 adopted by NIST.

According NWO post 911 physics recently, when a small object C drops (accelerates!) on and impacts a much bigger but static object A, then C applies an enormous force F on A at contact = crush down of A.

According Newton there is also object A that applies another, the same, enormous force -F on C at contact = destruction of C, before C can destroy A, because C<A.

Supersmell, can you provide any examples, balanced or not, of little C crushing A before and after 911?

Advice - do not drop anything C because you can destroy the whole world A if you believe NWO physics.


Some of us have noticed your embarrassing inability to explain why a hard punch does not have the same effect as a light tap. I prefer to think that you are not really less intelligent than an ordinary child, rather you are unwilling to expose the gigantic flaw in your understanding of basic physics.

Your clueless worshipper bryan is unwittingly sidling up to the truth. He understands that your signature claim, i.e., dropping the top third of a building onto the bottom two-thirds from a great height without destroying the entire structure, is insane. He correctly concludes that total destruction is, well, total. As that total destruction was achieved on 9/11 by the floors above the impact zone dropping much less than two miles, he is close to asking the question that would break the shackles that enslave his mind.

Alas, his agenda will never permit him to ask it. Between a drop of 12 feet that destroys the entire structure and a drop of one inch that does little damage, THERE IS A MINIMUM NUMBER. Real engineers and physicists are capable of calculating that number. You are not. A drop of a certain number of feet will generate a sufficient force to produce the pile driver collapse that cannot be arrested. Every real engineer and physicist grasps this simple concept. You cannot.

THE PUNCH PRODUCES A DIFFERENT EFFECT FROM THE TAP BECAUSE THE PUNCH HAS GREATER FORCE.

[goldengoose]

No, I never called upper part C an isotropic structure! It is a composite structure in the Mackey Mouse example. Like part A - the lower structure. Also a composite structure.

Part A has same structure as part C! And when similar structures collide, well, both are affected.

Not according to Mackey, NIST, Bazant & Co. Then only part A is affected! One-way crush down! Reason? Part C is rigid according Mackey, NIST, Bazant & Co and the NWO lot. Part C has not same structure as part A according NWO physics.

It is quite easy to demolish Mackey Mouse Physics. I do it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm .



Stop these nonsensical lies. Absolutely nobody thinks that the floors above the impact zone are "not the same structure" as the floors below. Mackey is a real engineer; you are a complete fool.

[bryan]

He correctly concludes that total destruction is, well, total. As that total destruction was achieved on 9/11 by the floors above the impact zone dropping much less than two miles, he is close to asking the question that would break the shackles that enslave his mind.

Alas, his agenda will never permit him to ask it. Between a drop of 12 feet that destroys the entire structure and a drop of one inch that does little damage, THERE IS A MINIMUM NUMBER. Real engineers and physicists are capable of calculating that number.


Not true. I'm simply trying to point out how illogical your claim is. IF a drop from 12ft causes total destruction, then a drop from 2 miles must cause the same destruction, because the destruction is already total from a drop of 12ft. Now look what happens when the drop is under 12ft.

There are 144 inches in 12ft and we have 97 floors, which is around 1.5 inches per floor. Working on a linear scale, let's suppose that to crush just the top floor of the lower block, we'd have to drop the upper block from a height of 1.5 inches. To crush the top two floors, the height would have to be 3 inches. To crush 96 floors, the drop would have to be from a height of 142.5 inches. And to crush all 97 floors, the drop would be 144 inches or 12ft.

But suppose the MINIMUM NUMBER for global crush-down is 4ft. That would mean that a change of half an inch would make the difference between a floor collapsing or not collapsing.

Are you going ask your hero Mackey what the MINIMUM NUMBER is? Tell him he'd better keep it close to 12ft, or it might make him and you look like a pair of horse's asses.



THE PUNCH PRODUCES A DIFFERENT EFFECT FROM THE TAP BECAUSE THE PUNCH HAS GREATER FORCE.

And the punch hurts because your jaw is a weaker structure than somebody's fist.

[goldengoose]

Not true. I'm simply trying to point out how illogical your claim is. IF a drop from 12ft causes total destruction, then a drop from 2 miles must cause the same destruction, because the destruction is already total from a drop of 12ft. Now look what happens when the drop is under 12ft.

There are 144 inches in 12ft and we have 97 floors, which is around 1.5 inches per floor. Working on a linear scale, let's suppose that to crush just the top floor of the lower block, we'd have to drop the upper block from a height of 1.5 inches. To crush the top two floors, the height would have to be 3 inches. To crush 96 floors, the drop would have to be from a height of 142.5 inches. And to crush all 97 floors, the drop would be 144 inches or 12ft.

But suppose the MINIMUM NUMBER for global crush-down is 4ft. That would mean that a change of half an inch would make the difference between a floor collapsing or not collapsing.

Are you going ask your hero Mackey what the MINIMUM NUMBER is? Tell him he'd better keep it close to 12ft, or it might make him and you look like a pair of horse's asses.


You really don't get the idea. Physicists and engineers do not consider this a difficult problem. Bjorkman is totally at sea (pun intended) becuase he is an agenda-driven incompetent. There is ALWAYS some theoretical boundary between collapsing and not collapsing. EVERY study published by real engineers shows that the energy available was FAR IN EXCESS of the amount required for a global collapse.




And the punch hurts because your jaw is a weaker structure than somebody's fist.

Wrong again. Will you ever learn?

[goldengoose]

Not true. I'm simply trying to point out how illogical your claim is. IF a drop from 12ft causes total destruction, then a drop from 2 miles must cause the same destruction, because the destruction is already total from a drop of 12ft. Now look what happens when the drop is under 12ft.

There are 144 inches in 12ft and we have 97 floors, which is around 1.5 inches per floor. Working on a linear scale, let's suppose that to crush just the top floor of the lower block, we'd have to drop the upper block from a height of 1.5 inches. To crush the top two floors, the height would have to be 3 inches. To crush 96 floors, the drop would have to be from a height of 142.5 inches. And to crush all 97 floors, the drop would be 144 inches or 12ft.

But suppose the MINIMUM NUMBER for global crush-down is 4ft. That would mean that a change of half an inch would make the difference between a floor collapsing or not collapsing.

Are you going ask your hero Mackey what the MINIMUM NUMBER is? Tell him he'd better keep it close to 12ft, or it might make him and you look like a pair of horse's asses.


You have no idea what incredible gibberish you just posted. Amazing stuff.
You are juggling numbers insanely. Can anybody be this inept?

[supersmell]

You get an extra 12 foot drop every time a floor gives way, so if the minimum drop is less than 12 then every floor will fail.

Not true. I'm simply trying to point out how illogical your claim is. IF a drop from 12ft causes total destruction, then a drop from 2 miles must cause the same destruction, because the destruction is already total from a drop of 12ft.
When something is totaled is just means that it's cheaper to replace than repair, it doesn't specify some unique state.
Drop the top part from two miles high and things would be different. Although sadly I know I'm not, and doubt anybody here is actually qualified to say how it would differ.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Not true. I'm simply trying to point out how illogical your claim is. IF a drop from 12ft causes total destruction, then a drop from 2 miles must cause the same destruction, because the destruction is already total from a drop of 12ft. Now look what happens when the drop is under 12ft.

There are 144 inches in 12ft and we have 97 floors, which is around 1.5 inches per floor. Working on a linear scale, let's suppose that to crush just the top floor of the lower block, we'd have to drop the upper block from a height of 1.5 inches. To crush the top two floors, the height would have to be 3 inches. To crush 96 floors, the drop would have to be from a height of 142.5 inches. And to crush all 97 floors, the drop would be 144 inches or 12ft.

But suppose the MINIMUM NUMBER for global crush-down is 4ft. That would mean that a change of half an inch would make the difference between a floor collapsing or not collapsing.

Are you going ask your hero Mackey what the MINIMUM NUMBER is? Tell him he'd better keep it close to 12ft, or it might make him and you look like a pair of horse's asses.

Bryan, do you honestly think that this is a valid approach to the situation?

And the punch hurts because your jaw is a weaker structure than somebody's fist.

Fail. Try again.

[goldengoose]

Bryan, do you honestly think that this is a valid approach to the situation?



Fail. Try again.


He doesn't even care that a jawbone is heavier and stronger than a fist, but that's not the point. A bag of seedless grapes is much softer than a skull. If you were hit in the head by one fired from a cannon, it would kill you.

[heiwa]

Some of us have noticed your embarrassing inability to explain why a hard punch does not have the same effect as a light tap. I prefer to think that you are not really less intelligent than an ordinary child, rather you are unwilling to expose the gigantic flaw in your understanding of basic physics.

Your clueless worshipper bryan is unwittingly sidling up to the truth. He understands that your signature claim, i.e., dropping the top third of a building onto the bottom two-thirds from a great height without destroying the entire structure, is insane. He correctly concludes that total destruction is, well, total. As that total destruction was achieved on 9/11 by the floors above the impact zone dropping much less than two miles, he is close to asking the question that would break the shackles that enslave his mind.

Alas, his agenda will never permit him to ask it. Between a drop of 12 feet that destroys the entire structure and a drop of one inch that does little damage, THERE IS A MINIMUM NUMBER. Real engineers and physicists are capable of calculating that number. You are not. A drop of a certain number of feet will generate a sufficient force to produce the pile driver collapse that cannot be arrested. Every real engineer and physicist grasps this simple concept. You cannot.

THE PUNCH PRODUCES A DIFFERENT EFFECT FROM THE TAP BECAUSE THE PUNCH HAS GREATER FORCE.

OK - Assume - again - you have a steel structure of 111 horizontal elements (floors), each supported by 280+ columns 3.7 m high. This structure is 410.7 m high. Assume you start a big fire at floor 97 and suddenly all 280+ columns below floor 98 disappear and - POUFF - and that upper 14 elements drop down on the 97 lower elements. Then of course floor 98 contacts floor 97.
Let's assume it is a BIG PUNCH. Floor 97 is backed up by 96 elements and floor 98 is backed up by only 13 elements. What happens then?
Well, it is in fact the columns between floors 98 and 99 that will break next because they are the weakest elements adjacent to the BIG PUNCH.
After that floor 99 drops down 3.7 m, another BIG PUNCH occurs and the columns between floors 99 and 100 fail. After total 14 BIG PUNCHES upper section above the fire is gone - resting on top of the 97 intact elements below! Basic physics. Beautifully explained at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm . Happens every time a small part C tries to knock out a big part A.

[jubal_harshaw]

I found this question in a high school physics paper is this what y'all are arguing about? I don't know the answer to this question personally, but does this question and it's answer explain why the planes penetrated the buildings without crumpling?

10 If the speed of a moving object is doubled, the
kinetic energy of the object is
(1) halved (3) unchanged
(2) doubled (4) quadrupled

[john white]

(4) quadrupled

^ Correct answer

[bryan]

Wrong again. Will you ever learn?


Fail. Try again.

Go ahead and try punching a brick wall. The harder you hit, the better it is for your hand.


He doesn't even care that a jawbone is heavier and stronger than a fist, but that's not the point. A bag of seedless grapes is much softer than a skull. If you were hit in the head by one fired from a cannon, it would kill you.

Would my skull be destroyed? Would the grapes be destroyed? Which would suffer most damage?


I found this question in a high school physics paper is this what y'all are arguing about? I don't know the answer to this question personally, but does this question and it's answer explain why the planes penetrated the buildings without crumpling?

Wrong thread. Try the Kindergarten Physics Lesson. You'll discover that they didn't crumple because they didn't penetrate the buildings.

[heiwa]

A drop of a certain number of feet will generate a sufficient force to produce the pile driver collapse that cannot be arrested. Every real engineer and physicist grasps this simple concept. You cannot.



It, this drop of a certain number of feet, sounds complicated and very dangerous to me. It cannot be arrested? What are you talking about?

[goldengoose]

OK - Assume - again - you have a steel structure of 111 horizontal elements (floors), each supported by 280+ columns 3.7 m high. This structure is 410.7 m high. Assume you start a big fire at floor 97 and suddenly all 280+ columns below floor 98 disappear and - POUFF - and that upper 14 elements drop down on the 97 lower elements. Then of course floor 98 contacts floor 97.
Let's assume it is a BIG PUNCH. Floor 97 is backed up by 96 elements and floor 98 is backed up by only 13 elements. What happens then?
Well, it is in fact the columns between floors 98 and 99 that will break next because they are the weakest elements adjacent to the BIG PUNCH.
After that floor 99 drops down 3.7 m, another BIG PUNCH occurs and the columns between floors 99 and 100 fail. After total 14 BIG PUNCHES upper section above the fire is gone - resting on top of the 97 intact elements below! Basic physics. Beautifully explained at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm . Happens every time a small part C tries to knock out a big part A.

You are incapable of explaining basic physics because you are an agenda-driven incompetent. No physicists or engineers anywhere in the world take your idiocy seriously. Every serious researcher has shown that the energy available was far in excess of what was required for a global collapse. You have fled to this tiny forum because you are tired of real engineers asking you to show your calculations.

YOU CAN'T CALCULATE ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS YOUR NONSENSICAL THESIS.

[goldengoose]

Go ahead and try punching a brick wall. The harder you hit, the better it is for your hand.

You don't get the idea that I cannot generate sufficient acceleration to punch through the wall. It's sad, but these basic concepts are beyond you.




Would my skull be destroyed? Would the grapes be destroyed? Which would suffer most damage?

Yes, your skull would be fractured. The grapes would be squashed. A child can understand this.




Wrong thread. Try the Kindergarten Physics Lesson. You'll discover that they didn't crumple because they didn't penetrate the buildings.

Your insane fantasy is stone-cold dead. Why did Mackey calculate the MINIMUM speed necessary for the plane to enter the building as it did? Yes, we realize that the question is terribly inconvenient for the idiocy you promote, but that's your problem.

[bryan]

There is ALWAYS some theoretical boundary between collapsing and not collapsing. EVERY study published by real engineers shows that the energy available was FAR IN EXCESS of the amount required for a global collapse.


If the energy available was FAR IN EXCESS of the amount required for global collapse, then the MINIMUM NUMBER must be considerably smaller than 12ft. So what is it? One foot? Have the real engineers calculated the MINIMUM NUMBER? Are they reluctant to do it?


You get an extra 12 foot drop every time a floor gives way, so if the minimum drop is less than 12 then every floor will fail.


How exactly does each of the 47 core columns lose a 12 foot section of its length approximately every 0.15 seconds? If the columns only buckled, the top floor of the lower block would not drop at freefall speed, but would be lowered onto the floor below.


Bryan, do you honestly think that this is a valid approach to the situation?


It would be valid if your model allowed for partial collapse. If you're saying that global crush-down was inevitable after collapse initiation, then there's obviously no way that only some of the floors could be crushed. I wonder if Bazant and Greening foresaw the paradox when they came out and said that total collapse was inevitable.



THE PUNCH PRODUCES A DIFFERENT EFFECT FROM THE TAP BECAUSE THE PUNCH HAS GREATER FORCE.


Q: What's the difference between tapping somebody on the chin and punching them hard?

A: The tap has little force and doesn't hurt. The punch has greater force and produces a different effect: the chin hurts.


Q: What's the difference between tapping a brick wall and punching it hard?

A: The tap has little force and doesn't hurt. The punch has greater force and produces a different effect: the hand hurts.


Why is it that in the first case, the thing that's being punched hurts, while in the second case, the thing that's doing the punching hurts?

[goldengoose]

It, this drop of a certain number of feet, sounds complicated and very dangerous to me. It cannot be arrested? What are you talking about?


It sounds complicated because you are a fool. All knowledge is dangerous to agenda-driven cranks like yourself. It threatens your fantasy.

I am talking about the same thing FEMA, NIST, Bazant, the team at Purdue, Greening, Mackey, Newton's Bit, RW Guinn, Dave Rogers, AW Smith, Architect, and Professor Astaneh's team at Berkeley are talking about.

[goldengoose]

If the energy available was FAR IN EXCESS of the amount required for global collapse, then the MINIMUM NUMBER must be considerably smaller than 12ft. So what is it? One foot? Have the real engineers calculated the MINIMUM NUMBER? Are they reluctant to do it?


What would account for their "reluctance"? This is a common problem with you conspiracy liars. All of your time is spent peddling baseless nonsense. You fabricate data, propose absurd pseudo-science, distort quotes, and tell outright lies. A real scientist like Mackey presents, not just his conclusions, but his work leading to those conclusions. He invites scrutiny, instead of fleeing from it. NIST solicits feedback. If you were able to find an error in any of the agency's reports, they would want to know about it.

It's 2009 and you have read nothing published by NIST, not even the FAQ page:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm






How exactly does each of the 47 core columns lose a 12 foot section of its length approximately every 0.15 seconds? If the columns only buckled, the top floor of the lower block would not drop at freefall speed, but would be lowered onto the floor below.


Gibberish.



It would be valid if your model allowed for partial collapse. If you're saying that global crush-down was inevitable after collapse initiation, then there's obviously no way that only some of the floors could be crushed. I wonder if Bazant and Greening foresaw the paradox when they came out and said that total collapse was inevitable.

What on earth are you babbling about? A glonbal collapse means that ALL floors were crushed.




Q: What's the difference between tapping somebody on the chin and punching them hard?

A: The tap has little force and doesn't hurt. The punch has greater force and produces a different effect: the chin hurts.


Q: What's the difference between tapping a brick wall and punching it hard?

A: The tap has little force and doesn't hurt. The punch has greater force and produces a different effect: the hand hurts.


Why is it that in the first case, the thing that's being punched hurts, while in the second case, the thing that's doing the punching hurts?


The answer is that you are amazingly obtuse and childishly disingenuous. As everyone who has ever punched a human chin understands, the fist doing the punching hurts a great deal. Brick walls, by contrast, are incapable of feeling pain.

I still fail to see how making yourself appear ridiculous advances your evil cause.

[dave52]

Q: What's the difference between tapping a brick wall and punching it hard?

A: The tap has little force and doesn't hurt. The punch has greater force and produces a different effect: the hand hurts.

No, no, no... You've got it all wrong. The hand doesn't hurt at all. In fact, the hand passes through the wall as if through a cloud...

[goldengoose]

No, no, no... You've got it all wrong. The hand doesn't hurt at all. In fact, the hand passes through the wall as if through a cloud...


Yup, I overlooked that. Thanks.

[bryan]

I am talking about the same thing FEMA, NIST, Bazant, the team at Purdue, Greening, Mackey, Newton's Bit, RW Guinn, Dave Rogers, AW Smith, Architect, and Professor Astaneh's team at Berkeley are talking about.

Just the type of people who would have laughed as Dr. Semmelweis was beaten to death. :(

[goldengoose]

Just the type of people who would have laughed as Dr. Semmelweis was beaten to death. :(



This is better than throwing in the towel? Pathetic, truly pathetic.

Face it, you're done.

[heiwa]

You are incapable of explaining basic physics because you are an agenda-driven incompetent. No physicists or engineers anywhere in the world take your idiocy seriously. Every serious researcher has shown that the energy available was far in excess of what was required for a global collapse. You have fled to this tiny forum because you are tired of real engineers asking you to show your calculations.

YOU CAN'T CALCULATE ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS YOUR NONSENSICAL THESIS.

Energy available is a good measure why one-way crush down is not possible. Take the first storey crush down. How much energy is available? Say it is 606 kWh when upper part drops! How much energy is used first to compress the building and then to crush various material in the impact zone into rubble? And how much is used to accelerate this rubble to same speed as the upper part?

One storey has mass 3760 tons. To accelerate it to 20 m/s requires 209 kWh.
So there is only 397 kWh left to compress a top storey structure and to to crush things.

Say that 209 kWh was used to compress the building structure elastically at impact until something breaks. This compression will evidently decelerate the upper part.

So only 188 kWh remains to crush things.

We know a good car recycling factory requires abt. 36.8 kWh/ton to shred a car. Thus the energy available to crush one upper storey of WTC corresponds to the energy to shred 5.1 cars!

However one WTC storey has the mass of 3760 one ton cars!

If you think you can crush 3760 tons of steel and concrete using only 188 kWh or only 0.05 kWh/ton, then just prove that.

In all may calculations it would appear that there is too little energy by gravity just to initiate any destruction.

This is THE reason why a part C of a structure cannot crush down the remainder part A of same structure by gravity (C<1/10A).

[djeminy]

This is better than throwing in the towel? Pathetic, truly pathetic.

Face it, you're done.


There's this very dark uncanny foreboding resemblance between
goldengoose and bill o'reilly, that makes me expect to hear him next also
shout out to us all:

"shut the f*ck up, you morons and imbeciles"!

Truly, 'the insane' lurks just beneath in the minds of these wretched,
appalling and pitiable so-called 'personalities', so be prepared for yet more
rancour from the pen of gg, who now seems to have lost any ability to
answer even the most simple straight forward question put to him!

What a sad case that man is..... really.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Energy available is a good measure why one-way crush down is not possible. Take the first storey crush down. How much energy is available? Say it is 606 kWh when upper part drops! How much energy is used first to compress the building and then to crush various material in the impact zone into rubble? And how much is used to accelerate this rubble to same speed as the upper part?

One storey has mass 3760 tons. To accelerate it to 20 m/s requires 209 kWh.
So there is only 397 kWh left to compress a top storey structure and to to crush things.

Stop right there! Where the HELL are you getting 20 meters per second?

For a one-story drop (which would be a bit less than 3.8 meters), the upper block will impact the structure with a velocity of roughly 7.67 meters per second. Taking the masses of the upper floors is roughly constant, I put the energy dissipated by momentum transfer to be about 37.8 kWh. Conservation of momentum says the combined mass will have an initial velocity of 7.19 meters per second.

(LATE EDIT: Just to clean things up, I got 7.67 meters per second by assuming a 3 meter drop -- I wasn't sure what number Heiwa was using for that. The 37.8 kWh figure, however, is derived using Heiwa's own estimate of 606 kWh available energy. Okay?).

Here's the equation I used to work out the energy loss. No doubt you already know how to derive it, and what the variables mean:

E = 1/2 * M * v^2 * [m / (M + m)]

You tried to work out the energy loss from the kinetic energy of one floor with a velocity 20 m/s. Sorry, you can't do that. You only get part of the energy loss that way -- conservation of momentum dictates that the upper block decelerates also, and that's an addional energy loss.

Therefore, even if 20 meters per second were the correct velocity, your answer would be wrong.

Say that 209 kWh was used to compress the building structure elastically at impact until something breaks. This compression will evidently decelerate the upper part.

Correct.

So only 188 kWh remains to crush things.

No, you'd have far more than that, because your figures are wrong.

We know a good car recycling factory requires abt. 36.8 kWh/ton to shred a car. Thus the energy available to crush one upper storey of WTC corresponds to the energy to shred 5.1 cars!

However one WTC storey has the mass of 3760 one ton cars!

If you think you can crush 3760 tons of steel and concrete using only 188 kWh or only 0.05 kWh/ton, then just prove that.

No, Heiwa, we can't compare the crushing of a car to the twin tower collapses. Especially since the primary failure mode for the tower collapses was broken connections, not crushed steel support columns.

In all may calculations it would appear that there is too little energy by gravity just to initiate any destruction.

This is THE reason why a part C of a structure cannot crush down the remainder part A of same structure by gravity (C<1/10A).

No, there are plenty of calculations out there showing there was enough energy to cause a global collapse.

[stannrodd]

I think Heiwa .. you should look at the facts rather than attempt fruitless analogies unrelated to the actual dynamics.

But then some times a fruitless analogy will bear a crop .. usually not very tasteful..

Stann

[djeminy]

No, Heiwa, we can't compare the crushing of a car to the twin tower collapses. Especially since the primary failure mode for the tower collapses was broken connections, not crushed steel support columns.

No, there are plenty of calculations out there showing there was enough energy to cause a global collapse.


Just to get this clear in my mind!

Are you saying that all 47 central inner core columns suffered 'broken
connections' either simultaneously or in sequence?

Did these broken connections happen all on the same horizontal line, or did
some of them brake off close to a ceiling level while others broke off close
to a floor level for example; such that there could never be talk about a
uniform drop of 3,7 meters?

How many of the 240+ perimeter columns do you think broke as well, at the
same time?

Is it your contention that the perimeter columns offered zero resistance?

[heiwa]

No, there are plenty of calculations out there showing there was enough energy to cause a global collapse.

Are there? And are they correct? NIST does not produce any.

Bazant & Co do - the kinetic energy of the upper part C after a drop of only 0.5 m exceeds the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying storey and by a factor of 8.4, if the drop is 3.6 m.

Well, if the underlying storey was locally so weak that it could not withstand a 0.5 m drop, you really wonder how strong part C was?

You see, if the upper part C actually drops, and many does not believe it, it is the upper part C that is destroyed first!

Bazant avoids the question by making upper part C rigid and indestructible. Scientific fraud at very high level, so to say!

Mackey makes the same error! Upper part C again destroys only the lower structure part A while C remains intact.

Sorry, collisions between weak objects do not work like that. C cannot destroy A!

[bryan]

Just to get this clear in my mind!

Are you saying that all 47 central inner core columns suffered 'broken
connections' either simultaneously or in sequence?

Did these broken connections happen all on the same horizontal line, or did
some of them brake off close to a ceiling level while others broke off close
to a floor level for example; such that there could never be talk about a
uniform drop of 3,7 meters?

How many of the 240+ perimeter columns do you think broke as well, at the
same time?

Is it your contention that the perimeter columns offered zero resistance?

You're making the mistake of using your common sense.

REAL ENGINEERS have no problem with these details.

[gamolon]

Heiwa, you posted this in the JREF forum:

Easter is past (unless you are in Egypt or Russia) and all eggs have been eaten, but anyway. Take an egg, make a hole in it and empty it and you get an empty egg. Make same thing with 39 similar eggs.

Now glue 40 empty eggs together in a structure with four eggs at bottom (2x2) and another 9 similar layers of eggs on top. You have a nice egg structure 10 eggs high (4x10). Test it that it doesn't collapse. The eggs are the elements, the glue are the joints.

Now carefully remove the top 4 egg layer - that is part C - from the 36 egg tower below - that is part A. Now drop part C on part A!

If part C crushes part A, you have won the Challenge.

You can also use eggs full of white and yellow, if you like - raw or boilt - but they must all be same throughout and glued together. BTW you dont have to glue C to A to test structure but just test A for lateral stability (that all eggs are glued). Then drop part C (4 eggs glued together) on your part A World Easter Egg Tower and report! Photos are welcome.

To which I asked the following question. What if I added some large, solid steel bearings the size of marbles to the top protion I am going to drop to represent the 10000 lb. elevator motors and the transformers that were located in the upper floors? What would happen when I dropped part C now?

[heiwa]

Heiwa, you posted this in the JREF forum:



To which I asked the following question. What if I added some large, solid steel bearings the size of marbles to the top protion I am going to drop to represent the 10000 lb. elevator motors and the transformers that were located in the upper floors? What would happen when I dropped part C now?

Did you? Some other crazy JREF person suggested to put 10 000lb transformers in pizza boxes to be able to crush the latter and I advised on that with a RULE!

Pls learn from that. Steel bearings the size of marbles?? In my World Easter Egg Tower model? You must be joking. This is a serious discussion.

[bryan]

Again, why is the NPT so important?

Wrong thread. This one is about the alleged gravity-driven global crush-down of the WTC towers.

[ronisron]

Wrong thread. This one is about the alleged gravity-driven global crush-down of the WTC towers.

LOL!! Damn, my bad. I'll cut and paste it into the appropriate "pile". Thanks. This is about the Mackey physics thing? Nevermind.

It was a controlled demo, the core beams were all cut at angles, none measuring any longer than 30 ft. Not snapped, cut. The whole pancake theory of collapse has been debunked very satisfactorily years ago. At least to me anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6KRJ4x82L0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU


Sorry about that bryan, your first post here is fantastic BTW.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Just to get this clear in my mind!

Are you saying that all 47 central inner core columns suffered 'broken
connections' either simultaneously or in sequence?

Did these broken connections happen all on the same horizontal line, or did
some of them brake off close to a ceiling level while others broke off close
to a floor level for example; such that there could never be talk about a
uniform drop of 3,7 meters?

How many of the 240+ perimeter columns do you think broke as well, at the
same time?

Is it your contention that the perimeter columns offered zero resistance?

The broken connections were the ones attaching the floors to the core columns and the perimeter columns. The perimeter columns peeled off in sheets. Parts of both cores remained standing post-collapse. Please read page one of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047), paying very close attention to what leftysargeant and ozeco41 have to say.

[djeminy]

The broken connections were the ones attaching the floors to the core columns and the perimeter columns. The perimeter columns peeled off in sheets. Parts of both cores remained standing post-collapse. Please read page one of this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047), paying very close attention to what leftysargeant and ozeco41 have to say.


tabea, you might not realize this, but you're actually insulting my intelligence by asking me to check out a thread on the Jref forum.

That forum gives me the shits and the shivers.

Kindly please, no more of this!

[bryan]

tabea, you might not realize this, but you're actually insulting my intelligence by asking me to check out a thread on the Jref forum.

That forum gives me the shits and the shivers.

Kindly please, no more of this!

The JREF forum can be quite entertaining. Leftysargeant and ozeco41 should be nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature. The descriptive prose they use when they explain how the towers collapsed is so imaginative that the average novelist would be envious.

At the moment, ozeco41 is trying to persuade people that when the upper block dropped, it went completely inside the lower block. He says for that to happen either the lower block had to expand or the upper block had to contract, but he's not sure which of the two actually happened on 9/11. You couldn't make this stuff up if you were writing satire, but the JREFers lap it up!

[heiwa]

I have started some threads at JREF, e.g.:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140047

The JREF OCT-ists have great difficulties I am pleased to observe.

[tabea_blumenschein]

The JREF forum can be quite entertaining. Leftysargeant and ozeco41 should be nominated for the Nobel Prize for Literature. The descriptive prose they use when they explain how the towers collapsed is so imaginative that the average novelist would be envious.

At the moment, ozeco41 is trying to persuade people that when the upper block dropped, it went completely inside the lower block. He says for that to happen either the lower block had to expand or the upper block had to contract, but he's not sure which of the two actually happened on 9/11. You couldn't make this stuff up if you were writing satire, but the JREFers lap it up!

Bryan, in the opening post to this thread, you yourself allowed that the upper block contacting the floor beneath it was far more likely than the columns of the upper block and structure falling on one another in perfect alignment. Look at the pictures you posted. I assume you didn't mean them as satire.

The problem with your pictures is that they shift the upper block to the side a little bit to explain contact with the next floor, which is incorrect. Contact with the next floor wasn't the result of the upper block shifting sideways; it is the result of the upper block tilting. (The upper block of WTC1 also tilted at collapse initiation, just not as dramatically as that of WTC2).

The tilting of the upper block brings at least one (possibly two) of its lower edges inside the outer walls of the structure beneath. As for the other two walls, I'd say we should lean towards simplicity and say the upper block wedged down in when the top parts of those walls started getting shoved outwards by the collapse.

~

tabea, you might not realize this, but you're actually insulting my intelligence by asking me to check out a thread on the Jref forum.

That forum gives me the shits and the shivers.

Kindly please, no more of this!

If you don't agree with what the posters there are saying, then use your intelligence to kindly point out and explain the mistakes they are making.

~

The JREF OCT-ists have great difficulties I am pleased to observe.

A masterpiece of irony!!! :D

[stannrodd]

I did a fairly intensive study of the structural adequacy and the dynamics in the design.

1 As the structure is built .. it gains potential energy.
2 Add tenants and other loads .. it gains even more potential energy.
3 The building is designed to accept those loads .. gaining more potential energy.
4 When the structure is compromised in a fatal way .. all that energy is released .. perhaps like a huge metal spring ...releasing energy.
5 We see a building explode .. I can get that in an architectural sense of it's devolution during destruction.

I have my suspicions about the ways the towers were assisted though.

It's obvious that when you compromise a tower like the WTC towers in a fatal way .. they behave the same... they DID !!

Predictable ?? Well on that day .. THAT happened.

That's not an accident .. that's planning.

Stann

[heiwa]

At http://the911forum.freeforums.org/crush-down-models-t145-180.html Benson, an associate of Bazant, is trying to make a structure of floors of ceramic tiles and columns of soda sipping straws, SSS, that are glued together.

This contraption or structure (yes, it is a structure!), when assembled, is supposed to prove that one-way crush down is possible in the real world as per the Bazant theory and as explained by Mackey on Hardfire to confirm the OCT.

As this structure will fail the test, I wonder, what the clowns will come up with next!

[bryan]

Bryan, in the opening post to this thread, you yourself allowed that the upper block contacting the floor beneath it was far more likely than the columns of the upper block and structure falling on one another in perfect alignment. Look at the pictures you posted. I assume you didn't mean them as satire.


In the pictures, two walls of the upper block drop inside the lower block, while the two opposite walls of the upper block drop outside the lower block. That makes much more sense than the upper block squeezing its way into the lower block. In a way though, I think the pictures are satire, because on 9/11 the two blocks wouldn't have become separated in the first place unless the building was blown up.



The problem with your pictures is that they shift the upper block to the side a little bit to explain contact with the next floor, which is incorrect. Contact with the next floor wasn't the result of the upper block shifting sideways; it is the result of the upper block tilting. (The upper block of WTC1 also tilted at collapse initiation, just not as dramatically as that of WTC2).

The tilting of the upper block brings at least one (possibly two) of its lower edges inside the outer walls of the structure beneath. As for the other two walls, I'd say we should lean towards simplicity and say the upper block wedged down in when the top parts of those walls started getting shoved outwards by the collapse.


In the slow-motion video below, of the North Tower collapse initiation, the upper block seems to tilt slightly away from the camera, yet the outer columns opposite the direction of the tilt are not being pushed outwards. The upper block is not dropping into the lower block - it looks more like it's being blown to pieces.

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


In the picture below, of the South Tower, the walls of the lower block are being pulled in by the weight of the floors and floor trusses, which must have failed on the core side.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg


You seem to know exactly what was happening as the upper block dropped onto the lower block, so can you tell us which bits in the upper block fell onto which bits in the lower block to transfer the energy from one to the other?


I did a fairly intensive study of the structural adequacy and the dynamics in the design.


Is this something you did recently or is it from your early days as a 9/11 trutherseeker? I ask because I don't recall you mentioning it before.



1 As the structure is built .. it gains potential energy.
2 Add tenants and other loads .. it gains even more potential energy.
3 The building is designed to accept those loads .. gaining more potential energy.
4 When the structure is compromised in a fatal way .. all that energy is released .. perhaps like a huge metal spring ...releasing energy.
5 We see a building explode .. I can get that in an architectural sense of it's devolution during destruction.


Did you look into how exactly the potential energy in 1, 2 and 3 was suddenly converted into the kinetic energy needed to destroy the building? Is that the part where you think assistance was needed?

[stannrodd]

Is this something you did recently or is it from your early days as a 9/11 trutherseeker? I ask because I don't recall you mentioning it before.

This was way before I had even joined any discussion group or forum. I was just curious about why the towers fell down .. it didn't make much sense to me so I just started looking .. from a few days after 9/11.

What's a "trutherseeker" :)

Did you look into how exactly the potential energy in 1, 2 and 3 was suddenly converted into the kinetic energy needed to destroy the building? Is that the part where you think assistance was needed?

No .. That's a loaded question. At the time I wasn't interested in any form of conspiracy.

The potential energy was gained as per 1,2,3 and was released during collapse.

I simply figured that .. total collapse shouldn't have happened .. so the next step was .. why .. that's what took me on the journey into an assisted "total" collapse .. ?

But get this bryan, I didn't fudge it .. to get where I got.

Followed a few red herrings (as one does) .. but I'm no "ditto head" .. even though there may have been times when I did ditto others thinking.

Carry on regardless !

Stann

[bryan]

This was way before I had even joined any discussion group or forum. I was just curious about why the towers fell down .. it didn't make much sense to me so I just started looking .. from a few days after 9/11.


A few weeks ago you refused to commit yourself on whether you thought the towers were demolished or not, saying you weren't a qualified structural engineer.



No .. That's a loaded question. At the time I wasn't interested in any form of conspiracy.

The potential energy was gained as per 1,2,3 and was released during collapse.


What I'm asking is why did the upper block suddenly start moving downwards when only a few dozen of the 283 steel columns were missing, and the whole structure looked as steady as a rock right up to the moment when the collapse started?



I simply figured that .. total collapse shouldn't have happened .. so the next step was .. why .. that's what took me on the journey into an assisted "total" collapse .. ?


Are you saying that only the 'total' collapse is suspicious, and there are no questions about way the collapse started?.



What's a "trutherseeker" :)


I could say I made a new word up specially for you, Stann, but I'll come clean - it was a last-minute edit that went wrong!

[stannrodd]

A few weeks ago you refused to commit yourself on whether you thought the towers were demolished or not, saying you weren't a qualified structural engineer.

I'm not, therefore I won't make such a "commitment". I still don't make such a "commitment" .. but I do think I can make an educated comment..

Lots of people suspect demolition, and so do I.

What I'm asking is why did the upper block suddenly start moving downwards when only a few dozen of the 283 steel columns were missing, and the whole structure looked as steady as a rock right up to the moment when the collapse started?

I can only speculate, because I don't know. What is obvious with the North Tower's collapse commencement .. is that the antenna moves downward first .. this can be seen in video footage. To me this indicates that the core structure failed suddenly. There was no gradual commencement or twisting, buckling .. it looked as if it just started to fall.

To me this implies that the core failed somewhere along it's length and the tower perimeter failed at a weak point .. the impact site. The upper block as you refer to it, wasn't actually a discrete block though. It was part of a larger block .. the upper third of the tower being a complete structural assembly. A part of that assembly on it's own has little structural integrity because it relies on the whole upper third to be a complete unit. We saw the upper partial "block" disintegrate .. that makes sense in terms of failure of the upper third.

The towers were effectively three blocks atop each other. The dividing lines being the mechanical floors which had significantly stronger floor structures than the office floors. I would have expected the collapse to have slowed or stopped at the end of the first third.

So if I had to make a minimalist call as to where the core was compromised by a demolition procedure I'd say that it was done in these areas, starting at the lower end of the top third. Followed by the lower end of the next 3rd at some point in time later, and so on. It's also the areas I would be looking at in forensic terms. Every beam and column had an ID.

I also think that the nature of the structure (Core, floor trusses and perimeter columns) allows failure of the upper third to occur as we saw it. What I'm also saying is that total collapse shouldn't have occurred IMO.

Are you saying that only the 'total' collapse is suspicious, and there are no questions about way the collapse started?.

The 'total' collapse is suspicious .. and the initiation of collapse is also suspicious IMO.

A "truther seeker" sounds like a FED :D

Stann :)