What brought down WTC7

[Venix]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

Are you blind? The tower at 3:30 is demolished by removing the fifth floor from the top, which results in the four top floors crushing the remaining 8+ lower floors. A smaller part of the structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of the same structure by gravity, completely demolished the greater part of the structure.

Are you seriously enough of an idiot to continue defending this "axiom" and its insane creator?

you and cogman are talking about the same building now. do you guys have a longer version of that particular vid b/c just half the building collapsed and it didnt look like it collapsed all the way.
thanks

Absolutely irrelevant. Björkman claims that the top four floors will harmlessly bounce off the rest of the building. They don't. Björkman loses.

You're seriously still defending this moron? A guy who believes that there were no planes at all on September 11, and that the videos and photographs of damage and fires were "Hollywood manipulations?" A guy who claims that if you drop the top 30 floors of the WTC on the bottom 80 floors from a height of two miles, the top part will bounce off and leave the bottom undamaged? An "engineer" who thinks that weight and mass are equivalent?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Number1
It's just a bunch of calculation demonstrating how the building did no fall at or close to free fall speed.

Close, but not quite. Regardless, the argument in reference to the towers, which I never suggested achieved any period of free fall. It is WTC7 which indisputably did accelerate at free fall for around 105 feet, and the physical impossibility of that in the context of the official story is what this thread is about.

Originally posted by: Number1
They also calculated that the energy released by the collapse of the building is equivalent to approximately 272 tons of TNT.

There is no mention of using explosives to bring down the building.

Rather, they argue against explosives having been used by referring to their tons of TNT calculation when claiming:

What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust.

Again, arguing from a false dichotomy of either gravity or explosives.

Originally posted by: Number1
You don't understand the article yourself bozo.

And on that note it is unlikely I'll ever bother replying to you again.

Originally posted by: Venix
After the beatdown he received in this thread, it's no wonder that he's loath to discuss actual physics and math. LOL, he doesn't even know what an integral is.

Rather, another moron making the "gravity or explosives" false dichotomy argument couldn't own up to his error when I pointed it out to him, so instead he belligerently stawmaned me as not being able to understand his use of an integral before tucking his tail between his legs and buggering off.

Originally posted by: Cogman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

That video does a good job of exemplifying the point of the OP; a force beyond that of gravity is needed to achieve a period of near free fall acceleration, the force being provided by the backhoes in that case.

Originally posted by: event8horizon
do you guys have a longer version of that particular vid b/c just half the building collapsed and it didnt look like it collapsed all the way.

I'd wager it was planed and prepared to make it all the way, and did so. The important factors are the mass of the upper block along with how much acceleration is allowed to achieve in contrast to the resistive force provided by the lower part of the structure, and that lower portion was obviously weakened enough previously to allow the upper block to crush at least the vast majority of it.

Originally posted by: Venix
Björkman claims that the top four floors will harmlessly bounce off the rest of the building.

Rather, he pointed that out as one possible outcome, depending on the specifics of the situation; "Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little." Granted, he is also talking about a structure which doesn't have a section of it removed by an outside force, and in which the lower section hasn't been previously weakened to allow the upper section to crush it.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

Are you blind? The tower at 3:30 is demolished by removing the fifth floor from the top, which results in the four top floors crushing the remaining 8+ lower floors. A smaller part of the structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of the same structure by gravity, completely demolished the greater part of the structure.

Are you seriously enough of an idiot to continue defending this "axiom" and its insane creator?

you and cogman are talking about the same building now. do you guys have a longer version of that particular vid b/c just half the building collapsed and it didnt look like it collapsed all the way.
thanks

Absolutely irrelevant. Björkman claims that the top four floors will harmlessly bounce off the rest of the building. They don't. Björkman loses.

You're seriously still defending this moron? A guy who believes that there were no planes at all on September 11, and that the videos and photographs of damage and fires were "Hollywood manipulations?" A guy who claims that if you drop the top 30 floors of the WTC on the bottom 80 floors from a height of two miles, the top part will bounce off and leave the bottom undamaged? An "engineer" who thinks that weight and mass are equivalent?

bounce?? where did u get that?

"It is furthermore not the total kinetic energy of the upper part C that is applied to the underlying storey - only the forces applied by upper part C columns are locally damaging, fracturing the underlying floor. At the same time the columns below apply forces on and start to destroy the upper part C bottom floor in the same manner. To fracture, punch through or slice a floor requires energy. Locally damaged floors would then get entangled into one another, huge friction forces would develop and arrest further destruction. No impact! To suggest that the load can increase without bounds due to a layer of rubble is nonsense. Bazant ignores local damages to the floors, all fractures that develop and the huge friction between these locally failed floors as the main factors arresting structural destruction. The loads and forces are actually reduced, mostly by friction! And collapse arrest should soon follow!"
.......

"It should be noted that in this second example, fig. 9, the local failures at the fire zone - the green floors dropping down and the walls buckle bending inwards - result in further local failures 58 metres higher up due to local forces in the upper part structure being transferred there due to the first failures below. The upper part is evidently not just one 'parts' but consists of many parts, and the weakest ones will fail, when any supports below fail. Thus the upper part will be part destroyed prior anything can happen to the structure below! This is a fundamental part of collapse arrest analysis of steel structures."
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

 

[Number1]

And the twuther flogging continues.

 

[kylebisme]

By the way, for anyone wondering why people are engaging in such mindless flogging here, you can watch an excellent explanation of the psychology behind it, presented in the context of the demolition of WTC7, in this video.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, he pointed that out as one possible outcome, depending on the specifics of the situation; "Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little." Granted, he is also talking about a structure which doesn't have a section of it removed by an outside force, and in which the lower section hasn't been previously weakened to allow the upper section to crush it.

Now you're just making shit up. Provide evidence that the lower section had been previously weakened, or recant your lies.

According to the patent for this demolition technique, "this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building." Oops!

Your claim that "he is also talking about a structure which doesn't have a section of it removed by an outside force" is another lie. Björkman states that if you remove the top 30 floors of a WTC tower, raise the section to an altitude of two miles and drop it, his "axiom" will hold true and the lower 80 floors will remain standing. Is that not an "outside force?"

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

That video does a good job of exemplifying the point of the OP; a force beyond that of gravity is needed to achieve a period of near free fall acceleration, the force being provided by the backhoes in that case.

And this post here does a good job of exemplifying that you have absolutely no clue about how physics works.

The Backhoes are neither pulling during the descent, nor are they significantly adding any vertical work before the decent. The vertical work done by the backhoes is completely negligible.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

That video does a good job of exemplifying the point of the OP; a force beyond that of gravity is needed to achieve a period of near free fall acceleration, the force being provided by the backhoes in that case.

And this post here does a good job of exemplifying that you have absolutely no clue about how physics works.

The Backhoes are neither pulling during the descent, nor are they significantly adding any vertical work before the decent. The vertical work done by the backhoes is completely negligible.

They removed the vertical support then they were irrelevant. As I see it.
Or I should say, the cables went slack so I assume they had no affect thereafter.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Rather, they argue against explosives having been used by referring to their tons of TNT calculation when claiming:

What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust.

Again, arguing from a false dichotomy of either gravity or explosives.

Originally posted by: Number1
You don't understand the article yourself bozo.

And on that note it is unlikely I'll ever bother replying to you again.

First it looks like you are following my advise and are using a spell checker. Good for you.

His argument is no more idiotic then the twuthers argument that explosives had to have been used in order to produce that much dust.

And on you last note, no love lost there, I don't respect twuthers like you. Your kind deserves nothing less then ridicule and it appears you've been getting plenty from what I have read in other threads.

I just hope that one day you may be able to see the truth and stop fantasizing about improbable events and wild fantastic tales.
I have my doubt if it is possible for you.

:brokenheart:


Not

PS: I will keep replying to your nonsensical posts and shoot them down every chances I get.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

Are you blind? The tower at 3:30 is demolished by removing the fifth floor from the top, which results in the four top floors crushing the remaining 8+ lower floors. A smaller part of the structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of the same structure by gravity, completely demolished the greater part of the structure.

Are you seriously enough of an idiot to continue defending this "axiom" and its insane creator?

You must be the idiot if you think that video is in any way relevant to how the official explanation claims WTC collapsed. Firstly, your video shows at least 2 sides of the building had that section of the wall removed. Last I checked, there were no backhoes pulling down WTC walls from all sides, only a plane that hit 1 side.

More importantly, you completely ignored the structural differences between WTC and the building in that video. Did the building in your video have the massive steel backbone in the center like WTC1 and 2? Didn't look like it to me. Was the composition of the materials the same in two scenes? No evidence for that.

Even more ridiculous is that the supporting structure in your video was removed by a controlled demolition, which caused an abrupt shift in load on the remaining structure. Nowhere did it show a raging inferno which supposedly weakened the structure to cause that effect. And do you know how hot, softened metal reacts to compressional stress forces? It bends and gradually gives way... it does not suddenly snap like a twig. But do you know what would cause it to snap like a twig? Not fire, but rather explosive cutting charges. So you tell me genius, what exactly does your video "prove" with regard to WTC collapse?

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
By the way, for anyone wondering why people are engaging in such mindless flogging here, you can watch an excellent explanation of the psychology behind it, presented in the context of the demolition of WTC7, in this video.

That was good for a laugh. LOL

Frankly, I find it unbelievable the extent to witch twuther will got to validate their own views.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

Are you blind? The tower at 3:30 is demolished by removing the fifth floor from the top, which results in the four top floors crushing the remaining 8+ lower floors. A smaller part of the structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of the same structure by gravity, completely demolished the greater part of the structure.

Are you seriously enough of an idiot to continue defending this "axiom" and its insane creator?

You must be the idiot if you think that video is in any way relevant to how the official explanation claims WTC collapsed. Firstly, your video shows at least 2 sides of the building had that section of the wall removed. Last I checked, there were no backhoes pulling down WTC walls from all sides, only a plane that hit 1 side.

More importantly, you completely ignored the structural differences between WTC and the building in that video. Did the building in your video have the massive steel backbone in the center like WTC1 and 2? Didn't look like it to me. Was the composition of the materials the same in two scenes? No evidence for that.

Even more ridiculous is that the supporting structure in your video was removed by a controlled demolition, which caused an abrupt shift in load on the remaining structure. Nowhere did it show a raging inferno which supposedly weakened the structure to cause that effect. And do you know how hot, softened metal reacts to compressional stress forces? It bends and gradually gives way... it does not suddenly snap like a twig. But do you know what would cause it to snap like a twig? Not fire, but rather explosive cutting charges. So you tell me genius, what exactly does your video "prove" with regard to WTC collapse?

As far as WTC goes, nothing really, other then the fact that it IS possible for a smaller portion of a building to collapse a larger portion of one.

The author event8horizon is going ga-ga over said that it was impossible for a smaller portion of a building to crush the larger portion. These posts have been done in an attempt to show him that the guy, who's article event8horizon is so fond of, is a moron.

event8horizon tried to use a paper by a guy, who is completely nuts, to prove that there is no way WTC could have collapsed and learned that insane people write long papers too.

Now, for the explosive cutting charges. Tell me genius, why did nobody hear, see, or witness said charges going off? How do you explode something without making a sound? There certainly would have been some evidence audio-visual evidence of a charge going off.

 

[event8horizon]

lets get into the steel they found at the wtc 7 site:
reposted b/c the pseudoskeptics have no answers.

ive been keeping up with a thread over at jref. i think this sums it up quit nicely.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155743

"the main problem i have is the rate of corrosion. this is the only study to try and replicate the conditions for the corrosion to occur.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/News/seminars3.html

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel
Thursday, September 25, 2003, Washburn 323, 12:00 Noon

Presented by:
Erin Sullivan

Abstract
"To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants. "


remember Dr. Astaneh-As was in new york 8 days after the attack and saw "Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10...lues-and-remedies.html

then later in the tread a poster actually quotes sisson (if anyone is that into the fema bpat report app c)

"However, preliminary experiments [5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble."


5. R.R. Biederman, E. Sullivan, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and G.F. Vander Voort, Buehler: ?Microstructural Analysis of the Steels from Buildings 7, 1 and 2 from the World Trade Center,? private communication

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155743&page=2

so what we have is sisson saying that the attack was caused by iron, oxygen, and sulfur but when it came to experiment, it dissolved little in 24 hours. now five- eighths of an inch is 15.9 mm. so over 24 hrs, there should have been almost 2 mm "erroded".

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: munky

You must be the idiot if you think that video is in any way relevant to how the official explanation claims WTC collapsed. Firstly, your video shows at least 2 sides of the building had that section of the wall removed. Last I checked, there were no backhoes pulling down WTC walls from all sides, only a plane that hit 1 side.

More importantly, you completely ignored the structural differences between WTC and the building in that video. Did the building in your video have the massive steel backbone in the center like WTC1 and 2? Didn't look like it to me. Was the composition of the materials the same in two scenes? No evidence for that.

Even more ridiculous is that the supporting structure in your video was removed by a controlled demolition, which caused an abrupt shift in load on the remaining structure. Nowhere did it show a raging inferno which supposedly weakened the structure to cause that effect. And do you know how hot, softened metal reacts to compressional stress forces? It bends and gradually gives way... it does not suddenly snap like a twig. But do you know what would cause it to snap like a twig? Not fire, but rather explosive cutting charges. So you tell me genius, what exactly does your video "prove" with regard to WTC collapse?

Your post speaks for itself. You have no understanding of real world physic, Even you friend Kyle pointed out you mistakes in earlier posts.

 

[LunarRay]

Anyone take issue with the following:
RE: Tower 1

The aircraft took out some exterior support and some interior core support but load was picked up by other members and transferred down. The building would have stood ok but for some additional events.

The fuel fire served mainly to ignite other flammable items in the floors of impact and above. They were not long lived enough to do significant structural damage by itself.

It seems to me by looking at the design of the floor system that the focus is transfer laterally and not down or up. iow, they are not designed to carry a load other than what is normal on a floor, to the exterior and core in equal measure. I read a vault installed required significant structural support. The floors had mass but were 'flimsy' otherwise.

Prolonged heating of the exterior 'fascia' bearing walls and the core columns closest to the floor interface above along with fire heating the underside of the metal floor 'plates' would cause them to sag down and lift up at the ends and away from their connections on both the exterior wall and central core. Edit: I know they have 5/8 bolts securing them in place.

The exterior walls are designed to both transfer force of wind to the core via the floor structure which is designed to dampen this effect via structural design and transfer down their mass to (especially to) two mid point structural transfer points... Floor 78ish and 44ish (as I recall) and the foundation.

The design included the notion of an aircraft hit and it having fuel providing ignition of the stuff on the floor typically found there.

The collapse of one floor section would not necessarily mean all floor sections on a floor had to join in. One might expect a cantilever effect in some cases where one end of the floor might leave either the core or exterior connection but that would be of no consequence overall.

The tipping observed of the top 15 floors at and above the plane entry level indicates that floor structure in the area of the impact gave out along with the core section at those levels. Meaning that the core section could not carry the load at that point. Cause of that Central core failure was due to absence of core beams wiped out by the collision with mainly plane engine and landing gear and maybe fire. And, as the building top tipped the other core sections gave way also.

At a point the top 15ish floors tipped over but the gravity acting on that block overcame the tipping and allowed [made] it to fall - you guessed it - down ward.

The building fell through the path of greatest resistence cuz gravity demanded it.

The pulverization of the concrete and everything else occurred on a floor by floor basis. Otherwise we'd not have seen the concrete 'atomized' on the entire journey and coming to rest all over lower Manhattan.

What I'm still stuck on...
Why the core didn't stay up and just allow the floors to pancake and the exterior to fall away as their lateral bracing no longer existed.

Why the top 15 floor section did not get blown to bits as it blew or pulverized (equal and opposite force thingi)

Edit: Why the core elements gave out at the point the top 15 floor bit tilted.

How the gravity energy was not significantly diminished by the creation of heat energy needed to pulverize as it dropped.

Why the building took so little time over 'free fall' to collapse going through the path of greatest resistence. Seems it should have taken 20 seconds or so... I think the calculation for that is a not a constant drop verus an acceleration drop... at 32 ft a sec and it being 1300 feet you'd have time for lunch but a reduced acceleration drop equal to the resistence (pulverization etc.). I've not seen a calc for that... but my guess is over 20 seconds for it to drop and do all the stuff. I'm told by my wizard gson that you can [he says easily] determine that by eliminating the force down by an amount expended to pulverize the stuff... like I can do that in my head...

Anyhow, That so far is my attempt to list in baby talk cuz I speak baby talk well... hehehehe what I gotten to based on the hypothesis that Planes and fire collapsed the building.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Now, for the explosive cutting charges. Tell me genius, why did nobody hear, see, or witness said charges going off? How do you explode something without making a sound? There certainly would have been some evidence audio-visual evidence of a charge going off.

There was plenty of evidence and witnesses to the explosions... but those were ignored. See here:

Text
Also see here:
Text

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: munky

You must be the idiot if you think that video is in any way relevant to how the official explanation claims WTC collapsed. Firstly, your video shows at least 2 sides of the building had that section of the wall removed. Last I checked, there were no backhoes pulling down WTC walls from all sides, only a plane that hit 1 side.

More importantly, you completely ignored the structural differences between WTC and the building in that video. Did the building in your video have the massive steel backbone in the center like WTC1 and 2? Didn't look like it to me. Was the composition of the materials the same in two scenes? No evidence for that.

Even more ridiculous is that the supporting structure in your video was removed by a controlled demolition, which caused an abrupt shift in load on the remaining structure. Nowhere did it show a raging inferno which supposedly weakened the structure to cause that effect. And do you know how hot, softened metal reacts to compressional stress forces? It bends and gradually gives way... it does not suddenly snap like a twig. But do you know what would cause it to snap like a twig? Not fire, but rather explosive cutting charges. So you tell me genius, what exactly does your video "prove" with regard to WTC collapse?

Your post speaks for itself. You have no understanding of real world physic, Even you friend Kyle pointed out you mistakes in earlier posts.

And you have understanding? What evidence of "real world physics" do you have?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

Are you blind? The tower at 3:30 is demolished by removing the fifth floor from the top, which results in the four top floors crushing the remaining 8+ lower floors. A smaller part of the structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of the same structure by gravity, completely demolished the greater part of the structure.

Are you seriously enough of an idiot to continue defending this "axiom" and its insane creator?

You must be the idiot if you think that video is in any way relevant to how the official explanation claims WTC collapsed. Firstly, your video shows at least 2 sides of the building had that section of the wall removed. Last I checked, there were no backhoes pulling down WTC walls from all sides, only a plane that hit 1 side.

More importantly, you completely ignored the structural differences between WTC and the building in that video. Did the building in your video have the massive steel backbone in the center like WTC1 and 2? Didn't look like it to me. Was the composition of the materials the same in two scenes? No evidence for that.

Even more ridiculous is that the supporting structure in your video was removed by a controlled demolition, which caused an abrupt shift in load on the remaining structure. Nowhere did it show a raging inferno which supposedly weakened the structure to cause that effect. And do you know how hot, softened metal reacts to compressional stress forces? It bends and gradually gives way... it does not suddenly snap like a twig. But do you know what would cause it to snap like a twig? Not fire, but rather explosive cutting charges. So you tell me genius, what exactly does your video "prove" with regard to WTC collapse?

As far as WTC goes, nothing really, other then the fact that it IS possible for a smaller portion of a building to collapse a larger portion of one.

The author event8horizon is going ga-ga over said that it was impossible for a smaller portion of a building to crush the larger portion. These posts have been done in an attempt to show him that the guy, who's article event8horizon is so fond of, is a moron.

event8horizon tried to use a paper by a guy, who is completely nuts, to prove that there is no way WTC could have collapsed and learned that insane people write long papers too.

Now, for the explosive cutting charges. Tell me genius, why did nobody hear, see, or witness said charges going off? How do you explode something without making a sound? There certainly would have been some evidence audio-visual evidence of a charge going off.

i havent seen one building you guys have linked to come close to the axiom:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

think about the twin towers when you read the axiom. basically, it boils down to the towers just needed alittle help to be brought down.

read this to see how heiwa debunks bazant and his crush down theory.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

watch the 2 hr movie 9/11: Blueprint for Truth ? The Architecture of Destruction
for more info:
http://video.google.com/videop...t+for+911+truth&hl=en#

visit the website with 925 architectural and engineering professionals that have signed a petition demanding congress for a truely independent investigation:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

[Number1]

Buildings Demolition

Some of those buildings appears to be falling at or close to free fall speed. Especially at the 2 min mark.

As somebody said before, no weakening of the structure needed, no explosives needed.

What do you know.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

Are you blind? The tower at 3:30 is demolished by removing the fifth floor from the top, which results in the four top floors crushing the remaining 8+ lower floors. A smaller part of the structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of the same structure by gravity, completely demolished the greater part of the structure.

Are you seriously enough of an idiot to continue defending this "axiom" and its insane creator?

You must be the idiot if you think that video is in any way relevant to how the official explanation claims WTC collapsed. Firstly, your video shows at least 2 sides of the building had that section of the wall removed. Last I checked, there were no backhoes pulling down WTC walls from all sides, only a plane that hit 1 side.

More importantly, you completely ignored the structural differences between WTC and the building in that video. Did the building in your video have the massive steel backbone in the center like WTC1 and 2? Didn't look like it to me. Was the composition of the materials the same in two scenes? No evidence for that.

Even more ridiculous is that the supporting structure in your video was removed by a controlled demolition, which caused an abrupt shift in load on the remaining structure. Nowhere did it show a raging inferno which supposedly weakened the structure to cause that effect. And do you know how hot, softened metal reacts to compressional stress forces? It bends and gradually gives way... it does not suddenly snap like a twig. But do you know what would cause it to snap like a twig? Not fire, but rather explosive cutting charges. So you tell me genius, what exactly does your video "prove" with regard to WTC collapse?

I never once claimed that it bears any resemblance to the WTC collapse, you colossal moron. As you're apparently either too lazy to read the thread or too stupid to understand it, allow me to summarize:

1) event8horizon's "expert" Björkman claims that progressive collapse does not exist. Specifically, he insists that a smaller upper portion of a building can never crush the larger lower portion, even if it's lifted two miles in the air and dropped.
2) I provide historical evidence of progressive collapse (Skyline Towers, Ronan Point), as well as videos demonstrating its use in controlled demolition.
3) The existence of progressive collapse is proven, and Björkman's idiotic "axiom" is debunked.

Of course, disproving Björkman's idiocy does not necessarily mean that progressive collapse destroyed the WTC towers. But it does mean that Zdenek Ba?ant's research still stands unchallenged, as not one of you has been capable of identifying a single point of inaccuracy.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1
Buildings Demolition

Some of those buildings appears to be falling at or close to free fall speed. Especially at the 2 min mark.

As somebody said before, no weakening of the structure needed, no explosives needed.

What do you know.

This is true Number1, however, would you agree that there was less expended energy going through that path than the net energy in the Towers and '7'?

iow, the mass is different but a pound of mass going through an egg on its side relative to 10 pounds blasting through concrete to get to earth?

Me thinks that while it is illustrative of a principle, it is not illustrative to WTC 1,2 or 7. In my thinking it is like apples and chimps. You need like everything or at least very similar to show relationship..
I see the tower event (in the hypothesis of planes/fire only) as having the top bits in constant acceleration for long period of time giving the force [F=MA] massive properties and a 10 story bldg having no where near similar conditions.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: event8horizon
i watched the vids, i do like how controlled demos produced progressive collapses. but read it again:

Björkman's axiom regarding any structure says:

"A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure."

now watch your movie again and see how they did it. they start in the middle. that does not represent how the wtc 1 and 2 fell and it doesnt apply to the axiom. bjorkman is debunking bazant with the one way crush down theory.

so tell me what ya know about the fema bpat report appendix c.

Are you blind? The tower at 3:30 is demolished by removing the fifth floor from the top, which results in the four top floors crushing the remaining 8+ lower floors. A smaller part of the structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of the same structure by gravity, completely demolished the greater part of the structure.

Are you seriously enough of an idiot to continue defending this "axiom" and its insane creator?

You must be the idiot if you think that video is in any way relevant to how the official explanation claims WTC collapsed. Firstly, your video shows at least 2 sides of the building had that section of the wall removed. Last I checked, there were no backhoes pulling down WTC walls from all sides, only a plane that hit 1 side.

More importantly, you completely ignored the structural differences between WTC and the building in that video. Did the building in your video have the massive steel backbone in the center like WTC1 and 2? Didn't look like it to me. Was the composition of the materials the same in two scenes? No evidence for that.

Even more ridiculous is that the supporting structure in your video was removed by a controlled demolition, which caused an abrupt shift in load on the remaining structure. Nowhere did it show a raging inferno which supposedly weakened the structure to cause that effect. And do you know how hot, softened metal reacts to compressional stress forces? It bends and gradually gives way... it does not suddenly snap like a twig. But do you know what would cause it to snap like a twig? Not fire, but rather explosive cutting charges. So you tell me genius, what exactly does your video "prove" with regard to WTC collapse?

I never once claimed that it bears any resemblance to the WTC collapse, you colossal moron. As you're apparently either too lazy to read the thread or too stupid to understand it, allow me to summarize:

1) event8horizon's "expert" Björkman claims that progressive collapse does not exist. Specifically, he insists that a smaller upper portion of a building can never crush the larger lower portion, even if it's lifted two miles in the air and dropped.
2) I provide historical evidence of progressive collapse (Skyline Towers, Ronan Point), as well as videos demonstrating its use in controlled demolition.
3) The existence of progressive collapse is proven, and Björkman's idiotic "axiom" is debunked.

Of course, disproving Björkman's idiocy does not necessarily mean that progressive collapse destroyed the WTC towers. But it does mean that Zdenek Ba?ant's research still stands unchallenged, as not one of you has been capable of identifying a single point of inaccuracy.

Then what is the relevance of your posts in this thread, you bumbling buffoon? Normally, in an investigation to discover what really happened, you'd examine and cross-examine all the evidence available. But, no, instead you'd rather debate the academic musings of "experts" based on mathematical models.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
By the way, for anyone wondering why people are engaging in such mindless flogging here, you can watch an excellent explanation of the psychology behind it, presented in the context of the demolition of WTC7, in this video.

I think that perfectly describes the mindlessness of truthers. They frequently call a deer a horse and absolutely insist it was a horse despite all evidence to the contrary.

Speaking of psychology, you want to know a fascinating psychological aspect of truthers? Nearly all of them like to believe they have some special knowledge that the "sheeple and lemmings" don't. In fact, they frequently believe that their knowledge is so special that they can't even agree among themselves what really happened. They all have their own version of events. Truthers act as if they are all unified but in reality they are generally psychotic about their own individual beliefs and have a complete lack of a unified, cohesive theory. It's one of the biggest flaws of truthers but they don't seem to recognize that fact, which is telling.

 

[imported_Equinox]

Originally posted by: Vic
Is it too late, technologically, to bemoan the waste of bandwidth?

Not yet, and not even days late.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Venix
Provide evidence that the lower section had been previously weakened...

It's right there in the video, as the top would have busted apart of at the same rate as the bottom had they been equally strong.

Originally posted by: Venix
"this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building."

It's not necessary if you go at it from the middle, like they generally do, such as here. However, if you want a smaller top portion to crush a larger bottom portion, the bottom has to be weaker than the top.

Originally posted by: Venix
Your claim that "he is also talking about a structure which doesn't have a section of it removed by an outside force" is another lie. Björkman states that if you remove the top 30 floors of a WTC tower...

Not in what was quoted here, and I didn't read any more than that.

Originally posted by: Cogman
The Backhoes are neither pulling during the descent, nor are they significantly adding any vertical work before the decent. The vertical work done by the backhoes is completely negligible.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
They removed the vertical support...

Exactly, much like "What brought down WTC7 was a near instantaneous removal of approximately 8 stories of structural support", as I noted in the opening line of the OP.