• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

Page 45 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
xj0hnx said:
Why are you still posting, and not withdrawing Scholmz's money? He posted video evidence of what you are looking for, that wrecks your theory. Get to the bank.
Click to expand...

Video evidence! Of what? You have to describe the structure A you intend to one-way crush-down. Then you have to build it, disconnect top C and drop C on A and one-way crush-down A by gravity and by C. And report. See rules at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Scholmz must follow the rules. Not just copy/paste a video of controlled demolition of an old house using external energy, etc.

According NIST, Bazant and other terrorists it is possible and simple to crush a structure only by gravity. Any structure will do. And, actually you don't have to drop C on A! Just fly a plane into top of A and after a while A is one-way crushed-down.

So just do it! I have asked Bazant several times to produce a structure and ... no reply! Does he exist?

Imagine: dropping a little piece C of the complete Earth A on the Earth and pouff - Earth is crushed. Gone. Pouff, pouff! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm . According Bazant anything goes pouff, pouff. Just drop it.

Crazy, isn't it? And GWB and Condoleezza believe these clowns. That is of course logical! GWB isn't very intelligent and Condi is just an ice skater that can play piano.
 
Heiwa said:
Video evidence! Of what? You have to describe the structure A you intend to one-way crush-down. Then you have to build it, disconnect top C and drop C on A and one-way crush-down A by gravity and by C. And report. See rules at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Scholmz must follow the rules. Not just copy/paste a video of controlled demolition of an old house using external energy, etc.

According NIST, Bazant and other terrorists it is possible and simple to crush a structure only by gravity. Any structure will do. And, actually you don't have to drop C on A! Just fly a plane into top of A and after a while A is one-way crushed-down.

So just do it! I have asked Bazant several times to produce a structure and ... no reply! Does he exist
Imagine: dropping a little piece C of the complete Earth A on the Earth and pouff - Earth is crushed. Gone. Pouff, pouff! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm . According Bazant anything goes pouff, pouff. Just drop it.

Crazy, isn't it? And GWB and Condoleezza believe these clowns. That is of course logical! GWB isn't very intelligent and Condi is just an ice skater that can play piano.
Click to expand...


Don't be skurd.

You wanted a building to have the top fall and crush the bottom, you said that it is impossible, yet he posted a video with the evidence that it isn't. Now you want to move the goal post, and trysya "oh you gotta described the structure", will in his stead I'll discribe it ...it was a building, closer to the towers than any one would be able to build with your measly 10,000 euro.

Get to the bank, and I'll be expecting to have to send you my Paypal info too, since I had to get in on it, I think 5% should be sufficient.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2NY6NNQJoY&feature=fvw

Lyrics :

The Pierrot dances on
In ever faster paces
The mask remains in place
And nothing ever changes
The headlines scream the news
Another scandal rages
But the Pierrot dances on
And nothing ever changes

The golden goddess
So loved and mourned
By Hollywood's elite
Whilst evidence was placed and lost
Investigations incomplete
Conspiracies abound
Amid our brothers watchful eye
But despite our need to know
We're still drowning in their lies

The Pierrot dances on
In ever faster paces
The mask remains in place
And nothing ever changes
The headlines scream the news
Another scandal rages
But the Pierrot dances on
Still nothing ever changes

From atop the grassy knoll
A hidden snipers view
But still all these years later
What was false and what was true
Uncovered plots and secret plans
We follow every lead
We analyze and theorize
About the jigsaw piece we need

So history repeats it's lesson
One we can't dismiss
And over time an English rose
Is added to their list
We watch underhand maneuvers
From Wallstreet to Iran
The fates of twins in blackened skies
Lies buried in the sand

The Pierrot dances on
In ever faster paces
The mask remains in place
And nothing ever changes
The headlines scream the news
As another scandal rages
But the Pierrot dances on
Still nothing ever changes

Gentleman
No doubt there is a lot frustration and fear and pain
I see you isolate the joy and now you search of fame
And the balance of your past and your brain
Remember that the rhythm of life will sustain
When will we find our ways find and unify
Said we'll never know if we will never give or try
So long we have been living in confusion
Never came to realize we dwell in our illusion

The Pierrot dances on
Another scandal rages
But the Pierrot dances on

No doubt there is a lot frustration and fear and pain
I see you isolate the joy and now you search of fame
And the balance of your past and your brain
Remember that the rhythm of life will sustain
When will we find our ways find and unify
Said we'll never know if we will never give or try
So long we have been living in confusion
Never came to realize we dwell in our illusion

The Pierrot dances on
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LunarRay said:
I understand your position... you have found what you consider 'facts' that don't reconcile with the published 'most probable scenario' by NIST. I have that situation as well... I default to the NIST proffer because it is the one that represents the Governments findings.. Failing the finding of proof that something contradicts that analysis no reasonable person will embark on a crusade that is predicated on the absence of proof... 🙂

I think it is all about how you ask the questions... I found many here assign to me 'truther' status because I venture to ask 'What about this or that'... I don't much care about the comments... it is the information someone might have or a take on something that helps me toward an answer...
Like the molten stuff... I'm not sure but don't think many even find it to be factual... I do... and will continue to do so until a more reasonable explanation is found... does that fail the NIST hypothesis ... NO... but it sure is interesting..
Click to expand...

to be honest I didn't know how to take you venturing in to P&N myself for this.

You do think it out though even if contrary to public opinion.

The molten debate is a weird one for me. I have friends in NYC, unfortunately all of them are being supported by parents/family money so their 'word' is mostly about continueing their existance.

As a scientist, I cannot understand how NIST just brushed it aside nor others that claim to be scientists do as well.

However, I know in my heart it's about their paychecks or funding.
 
xj0hnx said:
Don't be skurd.

You wanted a building to have the top fall and crush the bottom, you said that it is impossible, yet he posted a video with the evidence that it isn't. Now you want to move the goal post, and trysya "oh you gotta described the structure", will in his stead I'll discribe it ...it was a building, closer to the towers than any one would be able to build with your measly 10,000 euro.

Get to the bank, and I'll be expecting to have to send you my Paypal info too, since I had to get in on it, I think 5% should be sufficient.
Click to expand...

This is just awesome. Like the guy with a triple wide saying he owns major real estate.
 
Heiwa said:
Video evidence! Of what? You have to describe the structure A you intend to one-way crush-down. Then you have to build it, disconnect top C and drop C on A and one-way crush-down A by gravity and by C. And report. See rules at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm . Scholmz must follow the rules. Not just copy/paste a video of controlled demolition of an old house using external energy, etc.

According NIST, Bazant and other terrorists it is possible and simple to crush a structure only by gravity. Any structure will do. And, actually you don't have to drop C on A! Just fly a plane into top of A and after a while A is one-way crushed-down.

So just do it! I have asked Bazant several times to produce a structure and ... no reply! Does he exist?

Imagine: dropping a little piece C of the complete Earth A on the Earth and pouff - Earth is crushed. Gone. Pouff, pouff! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm . According Bazant anything goes pouff, pouff. Just drop it.

Crazy, isn't it? And GWB and Condoleezza believe these clowns. That is of course logical! GWB isn't very intelligent and Condi is just an ice skater that can play piano.
Click to expand...

I posted a video of just that. What external engergy was used in that video that would be any different than dropping the top part of a model on the bottom part?

I can't imagine why Bazant and NIST don't take you seriously when you call them terrorists (not to mention your delusions).

Anders, why does the Heiwa Co. webpage have a banner that says European Agency for Safety at Sea at the top?
 
Sclamoz said:
I posted a video of just that. What external engergy was used in that video that would be any different than dropping the top part of a model on the bottom part?

I can't imagine why Bazant and NIST don't take you seriously when you call them terrorists (not to mention your delusions).

Anders, why does the Heiwa Co. webpage have a banner that says European Agency for Safety at Sea at the top?
Click to expand...

Dude's trying to dick you out of your reward money.
 
alkemyst said:
to be honest I didn't know how to take you venturing in to P&N myself for this.

You do think it out though even if contrary to public opinion.

The molten debate is a weird one for me. I have friends in NYC, unfortunately all of them are being supported by parents/family money so their 'word' is mostly about continueing their existance.

As a scientist, I cannot understand how NIST just brushed it aside nor others that claim to be scientists do as well.

However, I know in my heart it's about their paychecks or funding.
Click to expand...

There are quite a few anomalies that I've listed in my 'black book of anomalies'... from 9/11. They are what I look for in ANY situation. Molten metal is one of the anomalies that has overwhelming evidence of its existence. But I do break it into two sections.. the bit on the 80th floor that NIST did address but that I don't concur in and the stuff underground.
Many folks here default to; there is no molten anything anywhere under the rubble. They view all such evidence as being something else or doctored or outright faked. Well... They are unlikely to provide any clue as to what might be there because what they focus on is what had been the 'Anti-Truther' tried method of debunking... "Point at something that you can prove is false and present that as indicative of the evidence that might support it..."
My sister makes a living and about to retire soon as an Investigator... She as well as my other Sister and Cousins live in The City... [EDIT: My other sisters live elsewhere] and Were there on 9/11. One worked in our Mystery Building 7. One a cop with the NYPD and yet another a Fire Person with NYFD. So... I've some pretty solid non hearsay information about what they saw, heard or felt that day and in the case of one.. many days there after.
You won't find me up in arms about sounds of large explosions from explosive devices, for instance ()🙂 IF there were some I'd need better convincing than what has been proffered thus far... Especially in the face of more reliable information to the contrary... But no one on the Planet can convince me that there was not Molten Metal in abundance... IF the satellite surface temp gizmo isn't enough along with the direct evidence provided by on scene witnesses and physical evidence like the 'meteor' and the 'cross' and the Expert opinion rendered by some who tested the metal on Staten Island... Photo and Video evidence, along with testimony by the Mayor in the Commission effort and others, I've a more personal input that I trust! It was there!!
So my only issue with Molten Metal is and assuming the collapse was caused by the Terrorist efforts alone... somehow... How did the stuff get molten? There must be a benign method or dynamic that provided for that. Maybe it was something that was unrelated to the Terrorist attack... but had the capability to do what was done.. I don't know and don't expect I'll find out... It appears no one with authority to find out has that as an agenda. I don't wonder why that might be... but it is obvious that it is the case and they have all the same evidence as we all do... It will remain an anomaly for me...
 
Last edited:
What Heiwa is chuckling about regarding Bazant's theory is predicated on the crumpled bits being 'invisible' and therefore, not there. And the upper bloc also not visible and, therefore, not there. So it is reasonable for him to state that nothing there could not cause the collapse.... Bazant, however, says that the stuff was there and had to be because the building did collapse... he, Bazant, omits explosives from the equation and Heiwa includes them. So the only issue as I see it is the existence of the crumpled bits and the upper bloc not impacting until much later.
I accept that if I brought enough concrete up to the 90th floor and poured it there and kept pouring it there until the floor gave out and was able to contain the crumpled or wet concrete within the structure I'd be able to collapse down all the floors... AND I'd have a bloc in pristine condition way up atop it all... until that bloc's mass caused the unbraced core and exterior columns to give out.... at some point that too would occur...
Bazant is not silly... he is quite the brain regardless of Heiwa's contention otherwise... it is simply that he does need the crumpled bits to fail the floors and stay more or less on top of the next down...
The time to do this and get to the bottom is another feature Heiwa argues can't have been available to smash drop smash drop etc... that takes well over a minute and I've not an answer for that part given that each floor had to be crushed and ripped from its anchor at the core and the exterior... Time is of the essence here...
 
Heiwa said:
Imagine: dropping a little piece C of the complete Earth A on the Earth and pouff - Earth is crushed. Gone. Pouff, pouff! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/pouf.htm . According Bazant anything goes pouff, pouff. Just drop it.
Click to expand...
Wow. Just...wow. You clearly don't understand materials or structural properties, and that's just the start.

Imagine this: dropping a little rubber ball on a bigger rubber ball. What happens? They bounce apart. So why didn't the towers just bounce off of each other?

The answer is obvious. The towers didn't have the same material or structural properties of a rubber ball. Nor did the towers have the same material or structural properties of the Earth. You're attempting to compare apples and oranges here and pretend Bazant treats them all the same. That's the typical kind of dishonest and ignorant garbage that truthers constantly engage in.

Here's a simplified scenario that you might be able to comprehend but it's unlikely you'll try because I doubt you'd ever allow facts to get in the way of your vast number of delusions.

Build a platform 12 feet high supported by steel columns and connected by trusses; one that is identical to the structural configuration, specifications, and load supporting values used in the towers. Ensure the flooring is adequately thick reinforced concrete. Now build the same structure consisting of 300 feet, or 30 floors. Raise the 30 floor structure 12 feet over the single floor structure and drop it.

What happens? I'll be looking forward to your explanation.
 
Sclamoz said:
1. I posted a video of just that. What external engergy was used in that video that would be any different than dropping the top part of a model on the bottom part?

2. I can't imagine why Bazant and NIST don't take you seriously when you call them terrorists (not to mention your delusions).

3. Anders, why does the Heiwa Co. webpage have a banner that says European Agency for Safety at Sea at the top?
Click to expand...

1. You did? What's your name and full style, &c! Pls describe the structure involved and then show how top C drops on bottom A and by gravity alone crushes A to rubble. Just a flimsy video doesn't show this. And let's face it - it is not possible, anyway.

2. Well, Bazant & Co wrote a comical closure to get out of the dilemma. You'll find it on my web site.

3. Heiwa Co is an agency that works with safety at sea matters since many years. It is very European! Heiwa Co will direct you (at no cost) to solve your problem. Safety seems also to be a problem ashore, e.g. NYC on 911. (And in the air!!!) Evidently no skyscraper globally collapses from top down by flying planes into the top!! It doesn't work. Thus other energy was used to destroy the buildings.
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
Wow. Just...wow. You clearly don't understand materials or structural properties, and that's just the start.

Imagine this: dropping a little rubber ball on a bigger rubber ball. What happens? They bounce apart. So why didn't the towers just bounce off of each other?

The answer is obvious. The towers didn't have the same material or structural properties of a rubber ball. Nor did the towers have the same material or structural properties of the Earth. You're attempting to compare apples and oranges here and pretend Bazant treats them all the same. That's the typical kind of dishonest and ignorant garbage that truthers constantly engage in.

Here's a simplified scenario that you might be able to comprehend but it's unlikely you'll try because I doubt you'd ever allow facts to get in the way of your vast number of delusions.

Build a platform 12 feet high supported by steel columns and connected by trusses; one that is identical to the structural configuration, specifications, and load supporting values used in the towers. Ensure the flooring is adequately thick reinforced concrete. Now build the same structure consisting of 300 feet, or 30 floors. Raise the 30 floor structure 12 feet over the single floor structure and drop it.

What happens? I'll be looking forward to your explanation.
Click to expand...

That's easy:

If you drop a 300 feet structure C (top part) on a 12 feet structure A (bottom part) fixed on ground from 12 feet above A evidently both C and A get affected at collision impact.

If bottom A structure (12 feet) can absorb 50% of the energy applied at impact as elastic deformation (the other 50% is absorbed as elastic deformation of top C), I assure you that top C (300 feet) will actually bounce on A. It is all simple dynamic structural analysis.

You can test yourself. Take a wooden stick that is 1 meter long. Cut it into two pieces where one piece is 0.9 m and the other 0.1 meter. Then drop the short piece on the long piece or the long piece on the short piece from 1 meter height and in every case there is an elastic collision = a bounce = and no further damage.

OK, you suggest that the wooden stick is too strong to get damage? Sorry - I can easily break it myself by bending it.

OK, you suggest that the falling piece applies too little energy on the fixed piece?? Don't blame me. It is the gravity that is responsible for that and it is too weak to apply sufficient energy. Note that gravity does not change if you make the stick 100 meters long. A 90 meter stick cannot damage a 10 meter stick by gravity.

Happy?
 
Let's see... to win 10,000 euro all I need to do is take 10 percent of a structure and using gravity alone drop it on the 90% part and crush it to the ground without crushing the 10 percent bit too... or at least until it, the 10 percent part, reaches the ground where it gets crushed up... finally! Oh.. yeah... the structure must be the same from top to bottom even though the WTC towers were much more massive the further down you go...

Solid reinforced concrete wont do it... nope..
A card board hollow box wont do it either..
A stack of bricks, maybe... nope...
Ah... a Tower exactly like WTC1.... yup that might do it.... ok... alls I need is a few billion dollars to construct one... but on second thought that won't do it either... The upper bit will always get damaged in the process and reasonably equal to the damage it causes in this similar structure... hmmmmmmmm
A rubber tower won't do it..
a stack of eggs won't do it...
Let me think a minute... IF the top bit dont get crushed by its meeting the bottom bit it must bounce up or hit and stop or hit and fall off... that rules out that kind of structure....
It has to be something that like itself must be crushable... and if it is crushable it will be crushed as it crushes... so that leaves out that kind of structure...
What is left? Danged if I know...
Keep your Krona, Heiwa.. or Euro... but let me know if you find such a structure..
 
LunarRay said:
Let's see... to win 10,000 euro all I need to do is take 10 percent of a structure and using gravity alone drop it on the 90% part and crush it to the ground without crushing the 10 percent bit too... or at least until it, the 10 percent part, reaches the ground where it gets crushed up... finally! Oh.. yeah... the structure must be the same from top to bottom even though the WTC towers were much more massive the further down you go...
Click to expand...

WTC towers more massive further down??? Not really - structure was about 96% air everywhere. And the horizontal floors were same everywhere at floor #1 and #111. Just to walk on.

And the windows were more or less same everywhere.

OK, the supporting pillars were higher stressed down below but using material that could transmit higher stresses, scantlings could remain same.

In the Challenge it is recognized that elements at bottom may be higher stressed than at top. You can evidently use identical elements anywhere in your test structure and then the bottom supporting ones will be higher stressed statically at start. Try it! The structure may 'collapse' from bottom up then ... or tip over as the bottom most elements fail first.

No, you have to apply the Rule of NIST!! Upper moving dropping smaller top part C applies energy on lower, fixed to ground, bigger, bottom part A that A cannot absorb = global collapse (of A) ensued.

Why don't you ask NIST for assistance? How on earth did the terrorists really destroy the towers? By gravity?
 
Heiwa said:
WTC towers more massive further down??? Not really - structure was about 96% air everywhere. And the horizontal floors were same everywhere at floor #1 and #111. Just to walk on.

And the windows were more or less same everywhere.

OK, the supporting pillars were higher stressed down below but using material that could transmit higher stresses, scantlings could remain same.

In the Challenge it is recognized that elements at bottom may be higher stressed than at top. You can evidently use identical elements anywhere in your test structure and then the bottom supporting ones will be higher stressed statically at start. Try it! The structure may 'collapse' from bottom up then ... or tip over as the bottom most elements fail first.

No, you have to apply the Rule of NIST!! Upper moving dropping smaller top part C applies energy on lower, fixed to ground, bigger, bottom part A that A cannot absorb = global collapse (of A) ensued.

Why don't you ask NIST for assistance? How on earth did the terrorists really destroy the towers? By gravity?
Click to expand...

I guess Europeans or Scandinavians don't have a term to describe the part of my post that was left out of the post you quoted. IOW....
I can't find a means to accomplish the task.

'More massive' in my thinking is found in the areas between the three sections of the Towers.. they were reinforced. The towers were essentially three buildings atop each other. Additionally, the core columns bore significantly more 'burden' the lower down you go and the steel columns were designed to accommodate that... No doubt if you don't consider that in the test model it may fall over or some such event...
 
LunarRay said:
I can't find a means to accomplish the task.
Click to expand...

Then ask for assistance! Eg NIST! Can NIST in a laboratory show a one-way crush-down global collapse due to gravity of any structure/building/anything? It is according NIST very simple (top applies energy = global collapse ensues). I have asked NIST to assist! No reply!

Or Bazant! Can Bazant/Northwestern University in a laboratory produce a structure where the top remains intact and crushes/compresses the bottom structure into rubble at 0.7 gravity acceleration. It is again extremely easy (top damages a few elements below that becomes rubble and the rubble is glued to the top and accelerates with the top: top + rubble produces more rubble until bottom structure is 100 pct rubble). I have asked Bazant to clarify! No reply!

The global collapse/one-way crushing due gravity is according GWB, Condoleezza & Co natural, common, happens all the time when UBL is loose! So where is the problem?? Can't it be demonstrated in a lab?

Are the USA incompetent to demonstrate in a lab what their leaders are preaching? Or is it just a matter of faith ... in the devil below?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
1. You did? What's your name and full style, &c! Pls describe the structure involved and then show how top C drops on bottom A and by gravity alone crushes A to rubble. Just a flimsy video doesn't show this. And let's face it - it is not possible, anyway.
Click to expand...
I watched the video. The only additional forces applied was the crane pulling the supporting walls between the upper and lower parts. Once the smaller upper part starts falling it crushes the bottom part to the ground all with gravity alone. Get to the bank and pay the man.

I would not do business with you especially with regard to safety issue as you have no basic understanding of physic. I wonder how many people died as a result of your work on maritime safety.
 
LunarRay said:
Let's see... to win 10,000 euro all I need to do is take 10 percent of a structure and using gravity alone drop it on the 90% part and crush it to the ground without crushing the 10 percent bit too... or at least until it, the 10 percent part, reaches the ground where it gets crushed up... finally! Oh.. yeah... the structure must be the same from top to bottom even though the WTC towers were much more massive the further down you go...

Solid reinforced concrete wont do it... nope..
A card board hollow box wont do it either..
A stack of bricks, maybe... nope...
Ah... a Tower exactly like WTC1.... yup that might do it.... ok... alls I need is a few billion dollars to construct one... but on second thought that won't do it either... The upper bit will always get damaged in the process and reasonably equal to the damage it causes in this similar structure... hmmmmmmmm
A rubber tower won't do it..
a stack of eggs won't do it...
Let me think a minute... IF the top bit dont get crushed by its meeting the bottom bit it must bounce up or hit and stop or hit and fall off... that rules out that kind of structure....
It has to be something that like itself must be crushable... and if it is crushable it will be crushed as it crushes... so that leaves out that kind of structure...
What is left? Danged if I know...
Keep your Krona, Heiwa.. or Euro... but let me know if you find such a structure..
Click to expand...

Good point. I don't think we are dealing with a reasonable person here.
 
Number1 said:
I watched the video. The only additional forces applied was the crane pulling the supporting walls between the upper and lower parts. Once the smaller upper part starts falling it crushes the bottom part to the ground all with gravity alone. Get to the bank and pay the man.

I would not do business with you especially with regard to safety issue as you have no basic understanding of physic. I wonder how many people died as a result of your work on maritime safety.
Click to expand...

You watched a video? Crane pulling supporting walls???? And you did nothing????

Sorry, I do not do business with people like you.

And furthermore you think people die because of me at sea??? Any evidence for that? Moderator! Please - this Number 1 seems sick or crazy. Suggest you disconnect him from Forum!
 
Number1 said:
I watched the video. The only additional forces applied was the crane pulling the supporting walls between the upper and lower parts. Once the smaller upper part starts falling it crushes the bottom part to the ground all with gravity alone. Get to the bank and pay the man.

I would not do business with you especially with regard to safety issue as you have no basic understanding of physic. I wonder how many people died as a result of your work on maritime safety.
Click to expand...

In some it was a crane, in others it is hydraulic, or pneumatic systems to push the walls from the inside.
 
Heiwa said:
That's easy:

If you drop a 300 feet structure C (top part) on a 12 feet structure A (bottom part) fixed on ground from 12 feet above A evidently both C and A get affected at collision impact.

If bottom A structure (12 feet) can absorb 50% of the energy applied at impact as elastic deformation (the other 50% is absorbed as elastic deformation of top C), I assure you that top C (300 feet) will actually bounce on A. It is all simple dynamic structural analysis.

You can test yourself. Take a wooden stick that is 1 meter long. Cut it into two pieces where one piece is 0.9 m and the other 0.1 meter. Then drop the short piece on the long piece or the long piece on the short piece from 1 meter height and in every case there is an elastic collision = a bounce = and no further damage.

OK, you suggest that the wooden stick is too strong to get damage? Sorry - I can easily break it myself by bending it.

OK, you suggest that the falling piece applies too little energy on the fixed piece?? Don't blame me. It is the gravity that is responsible for that and it is too weak to apply sufficient energy. Note that gravity does not change if you make the stick 100 meters long. A 90 meter stick cannot damage a 10 meter stick by gravity.

Happy?
Click to expand...
Nope, not happy at all.

You speak about elastic deformation and fail to mention what happens under plastic deformation. The structures are made from steel components and steel reinforced concrete that are interconnected, not wooden sticks. The structural properties of the two do not compare, to start. The WTC buildings were not solid objects like a stick. If you have to use sticks as being analogous then maybe you should consider Tinker Toys? That would be much more appropriate because the point where the structure fails is far more likely to be a joint where load stresses would be focused. Even Tinker Toys aren't truly adequate in comparison though.

Another mistake you are making is assuming this is about the properties of a single material. It is not. What you have to consider is the load bearing capacity of that individual, static floor of the WTC vs. the dynamic energy inherent in the mass of the 30 floors above it that are dropped from a height of 12 feet.

Take that into consideration and try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top