OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[dafydd]

Chandler works out some of the velocities:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidSChandler#p/u/8/N_UeLXfI37s

Chandler goes over these explosive ejections in this video as well:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidSChandler#p/u/13/atSd7mxgsGY

Despite the fact that the upper section of the South Tower is toppling, the ejections are perfectly symmetric and actually lead the collapse itself, as evidenced by the intact corner of the structure which is visible above these horizontal ejections themselves.

You were asked to work it out.

[adkinsjr]

He's actually arguing that the lateral debris vectors are caused by explosives? Hilarious.

The Hollywood plot is matched by Hollywood physics.

LOL, I find that claim amusing too. He clearly hasn't thought this one through, I think it would take some pretty extreme explosives to do that. Plus, isn't the mechanical ejection of lateral debris" the sort of thing that CDs are meant to avoid?

"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage

"The explosives had to be so intense such as to hurl these beams at 65 mph laterally, landing five hundred feet away."
-Richard Gage

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Photos/Richard%20Gage%20220%20JPG80.jpg
cult leader

[tempesta29]

He's actually arguing that the lateral debris vectors are caused by explosives? Hilarious.

The Hollywood plot is matched by Hollywood physics.

Lateral debris vectors? Don't confuse the poor boy.

You were asked to work it out.

:id:



So little substance, so much time.

[Thunder]

So little substance, so much time.

:id:

[tempesta29]

LOL, I find that claim amusing too. He clearly hasn't thought this one through, I think it would take some pretty extreme explosives to do that. Plus, isn't the mechanical ejection of lateral debris" the sort of thing that CDs are meant to avoid?

They're meant to avoid such ejections for what reason? And how would that reason apply to this situation? And have buildings of these design ever been destroyed in such a manner?

So why on Earth would the objectives of professional CDs apply here?

[alienentity]

Negative. Mass is not necessarily stacking up. Mass in the Twin Towers is being blown laterally with incredible force. If anything, mass is decreasing. Since we both understand Newton's Third, we know that the upper section is being destroyed in virtually the same way as the lower section of each tower.


Your argument doesn't square with the basic facts, unfortunately, which is why it is wrong.
If the upper block were actually being destroyed, as you say it was, then it wouldn't be falling at 64% g, it would be falling much faster. But that's not what happened.
Besides, before the upper block disappears into the dust, it is demonstrably intact, so the claim that it was destroyed at that point is disingenuous and false.

The mere fact that the upper block accelerated at substantially less than freefall is hard evidence that it was destroying structure and there was conservation of momentum, as we would expect.
Using physics, you must conclude that the upper block was only experiencing an upwards force roughly 1/3 g, which is actually less force than it had been experiencing since it was built!

Next fallacy that you attempt to pass off is that, since there was some (you never quantify this, so it is a rather empty idea) amount of mass ejected, therefore the descending impulse energy was decreasing!

Yet you utterly fail to offer any meaningful numbers to back the claim up; and indeed you continue to fail to account for the physical certainty that the accelerating masses (whatever they were) most assuredly gained kinetic energy - otherwise they wouldn't be accelerating, you see.

How much energy was gained and lost? You haven't got the foggiest idea, but you're apparently hoping that your audience's brains have mysteriously switched off, and they won't notice the vacuous hot air...... too bad for you, nobody's buying your anti-scientific nonsense.

I double dare you to take your ideas to a good engineering or physics dept at a university and see how much respect you get. You'll never do it, anymore than you're going to go publish a paper in an engineering journal.

But keep fooling yourself if reality doesn't matter, I really don't care. Your opinion, misinformed as it is, just isn't important.

[davefoc]

I took a look at the videos.

I assumed that the speed of the debris expelled horizontally would be approximately the speed required to expel all of the air from a floor as the collapse proceeded downward.

I used the fact that there was about two frames between the start of the first horizontal plume and the start of the second horizontal plume to get an estimate of the rate of building collapse at this point. So assuming that there is about 4 meters between the floors the building is collapsing at about 60 meters per second (4 meters / 1/15 second).

I assumed that about half the building wall was glass which was blown away by the pressure and that the building was about 70 meters on each side. So there was about 280 square meters of area per meter of building height for the air between the floor to be evacuated through.

Assuming that my data and calculations are correct the velocity needed to evacuate the air through that opening assuming no compression of the air is around 2000 meters per second. This is much larger than the approximately 45 meters per second than was seen in the video.

So... my original assumption that almost all the air in each floor was being blasted out the windows as the floor collapsed seems to be wrong.

What actually seems to be happening is that a large pressure wave is being created as the building collapse pressures the air within the building and that pressure wave is collapsing floors ahead of the collapsing structure.

With my limited skills it seems very difficult to predict the nature of the collapse assuming that an air pressure wave seems to have played a significant role. As the collapse proceeds through the building a lot of the excess pressure is just released up and out through the area where the building had been. This prevents a pressure wave from shooting downward through the entire building and causing a collapse even faster than just caused by gravitational fall. None the less it seems like a significant amount of damage is going to precede a collapsing floor caused by this pressure wave.

As an aside, I realize these ideas have been well thought out by people who know much more about this than I do. That's one of the reasons I posted this. I'm hoping that somebody might provide more details about the analysis of the issue I discussed above.

[Thunder]

Removed breach of Rule 12

[tempesta29]

Your argument doesn't square with the basic facts, unfortunately, which is why it is wrong.
If the upper block were actually being destroyed, as you say it was, then it wouldn't be falling at 64% g, it would be falling much faster. But that's not what happened.
Besides, before the upper block disappears into the dust, it is demonstrably intact, so the claim that it was destroyed at that point is disingenuous and false.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the upper section is destroying the lower then the opposite is happening. Net force is still downward because of gravity, but in the case of the North Tower, the lower section comprises roughly 10x the mass of the upper section. Newton's Third Law precludes such an event.

Are you claiming the upper sections aren't being destroyed?

[alienentity]

They're meant to avoid such ejections for what reason? And how would that reason apply to this situation? And have buildings of these design ever been destroyed in such a manner?

So why on Earth would the objectives of professional CDs apply here?

Well you've finally arrived at the inherently (fatal) contradiction in the truther arguments - that these collapses were exactly like CD's yet are completely unlike any CD's in history.
Congratulations. You can't win the argument as it contains a logical contradiction.

Well, there are many logical contradictions, including but not limited to the insistence of truthers that any amount of freefall acceleration is proof of explosive CD; yet neither of the towers collapsed at or even very close to freefall accel.
So clearly that axiom is false. Yet truthers have hung their entire arguments on it.

There is also a terrifying mental hurdle that must be overcome to buy explosive CD dogma - that is, in not a single instance, on any video recorded, has an explosive CD not involved, large, unmistakable explosions, immediately preceding the collapse.
It doesn't matter what brand of camcorder was used, professional or consumer - they all capture the explosions easily....
except.....
none did on 9/11. Oops!

So truthers are in the agonizing position of arguing for something which cannot have happened, simply because there is no evidence - evidence which is always found....just go ahead and check youtube if you don't believe me.

Something which is found 100% of the time, mysteriously absent 100% of the time on 9/11. Hmmm, you just can't win that argument.

Of course, that's why truthers invented thermite demolition, to try to dodge the terrible reality that their CD hypothesis is wrong. Trouble is, there IS no precedent for that kind of CD, and there's no science to back it up either. It's a major fail right from the get-go.
And it unfortunately cannot explain the lateral ejections, so beloved by truthers such as Richard Gage.

So you're stuck in an infinite loop of fail, jumping from one illogical, contradiction-riddled theory to another, in hopes that you won't sink in the sea of your own nonsense.

It ain't pretty. I wouldn't want to be making your arguments, cause you're bound to lose.

[alienentity]

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the upper section is destroying the lower then the opposite is happening. Net force is still downward because of gravity, but in the case of the North Tower, the lower section comprises roughly 10x the mass of the upper section. Newton's Third Law precludes such an event.

Are you claiming the upper sections aren't being destroyed?

This question has been dealt with, using mathematics, not just vague guesses. I'm not claiming these things, these are conclusions reached by careful and competent analysis, published in peer-reviewed engineering journals.

The compacted mass of debris which results from the impact of the upper block with the floor immediately below is very dense, and is also accelerating downward (remember gravity) and impacting the next floor.
Within a couple of seconds, this rubble constitutes the main crush-front, leaving the upper block largely out of the impact zone.

[Thunder]

but in the case of the North Tower, the lower section comprises roughly 10x the mass of the upper section.

irrelevant. the WTC was not a tree.

never mind the fact that the upper section had dynamic mass while the lower section was static. and every section that was crushed ADDED to the dynamic mass of the upper section.

9-11 has taught me sooooo much about physics and engineering. :)

[Sam.I.Am]

Hmmm... seems as though my truther friend has gotten himself a 30 day vacation. I wonder if he'll spend that time looking for a method that meets the three basic requirements that I laid out above concerning using explosives in the towers.

I'm guessing that either he won't look at all or that, if he does look into it he will find out that indeed there is no way to meet his own theories requirements and ignore the results using some truly amazing mental gymnastics.

[Lyrandar]

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the upper section is destroying the lower then the opposite is happening. Net force is still downward because of gravity, but in the case of the North Tower, the lower section comprises roughly 10x the mass of the upper section. Newton's Third Law precludes such an event.

Are you claiming the upper sections aren't being destroyed?

If nothing else, by trying to claim in previous posts that "destroyed" is equivalent to "laterally ejected", you're doing better than some of the other truthers who seem to expect mass to simply disappear when the upper block is destroyed.

Unfortunately, I don't believe you've shown they are equivalent. In fact, the equal and opposite upward force you're claiming is one of the least effective forces for causing lateral ejection.

And all of that assumes the upper block is actually being destroyed in the first place, which as I recall isn't actually happening as quickly as you might expect due to the rubble layer, as alienentity said above.

[jaydeehess]

This question doesn't even make sense.

As I said before, your inability to recognize what was happening is not my fault.


Mass is not necessarily stacking up. Mass in the Twin Towers is being blown laterally with incredible force. If anything, mass is decreasing.

How about some calculations to back that up? How about some facts and figures, such as the tonnage of material from the towers that ebded up not within the footprint versus the amount that did.
Since we both understand Newton's Third,

well at least one of us does. we know that the upper section is being destroyed in virtually the same way as the lower section of each tower.

Pretty much except for the hat truss and the creation of a debris zone between the two sections, which would allow the upper block to remain relatively intact for a bit longer.
There are other differences as well. The floor pans of the uppersection are being taken off their truss seats upward(wrt to the seats themselves)while the lower floors were being pushed downward and had to bend those seats over. Not sure how much effect that might have had.

There is also the effect of thousands of square feet of drywall being violently crushed creating a huge amount of lightweight dust that is very easily blown outwrad giving a greater appearance of ejected mass than is actually ocuring, at least for the first several floors.

Mass is essentially being blown outward; it isn't stacking up like pancakes.

Its exiting out the sides in much the same way that apile of gravel forms an inverted cone that widens as more get piled on. Except that in this case there is the constraint of the floor area and if something falls past it then its off into free air.
So there is AT LEAST a minimum mass of falling debris that is always within the walls AND its velocity is increasing AND thus the momentum of that mass is increasing. Furthermore it never comes to rest and would not have to pile up into that inverted cone shape.
It's being broken up and dispersed and its force decreasing as collapse progresses. The 10 stories of the North Tower's upper section could never have completely eliminated the 100 stories below it.

Is this the 'a pile of debris cannot exert the force of a solid object' strawman so favoured by 9/11 conspiracists?

The reason a loose collection of debris has not the dynamic force of a solid object is that it impacts another object over a longer period. This is why a front end loader operator will slowly empty the bucket into a truck rather than dump the whole thing as quickly as he could.(the truck driver/owner might punch his lights out). However its mass , of course, remains the same. Furthermore, in this case, by the time the material causing the collapse is primarily loose debris(mind you much of it being multi-ton steel column sections) the velocity of this debris was much greater so you now minimize the effect of a more drawn out time of impact on each floor pan. Greater velocity means shorter time to get the same impact force from a loose debris impact.

AND,,,,,, again,,,,,, the vast majority of this mass and impact force(dynamic load) is hitting the floor pans, NOT the axis of the columns. THEREFORE the floors fail. There may be some force due to pressurized air as well but I do not subscribe to that as having a significant effect.

No floors=no lateral support=column failure

See you actually have to look at the hard evidence, not just take a simple equation and run with it.

I have looked at the 'evidence' and have seen nothing to dissuade me from the senario I put forth. I have also not seen you employ any science whatsoever, instead choosing personal incredulity as your guide.
You bandy about terms like 'decelleration', 'resistance' and speak of Newtons third law of motion but have demonstrated time and again your lack of understanding of these and other things.

Lastly, my question still stands, and your attempt to deflect is noted, but let's break it down.

1) When the initial collapse occurs, what is happening to the columns at that level? In answering this question I do not care whether you are invoking explosives being used to sever the columns or if they bend and buckle due to heat and increased load due to other failed columns.
If in the pristine structure a column was a straight line through these floors what does that line look like at initial failure?

2) Given that the load on any floor was transfered to the columns via the truss seats, would you expect all floors to be essentially the same (aside from the handful of floors that used heavy beams rather than lightweight trusses)?

3) Do you know the principal of long slender column buckling and the need for lateral bracing? Are you aware that the floor trusses provided this lateral bracing between the core column system and the perimeter columns system?
What is the result of the removal of lateral bracing?

[jaydeehess]

This question has been dealt with, using mathematics, not just vague guesses. I'm not claiming these things, these are conclusions reached by careful and competent analysis, published in peer-reviewed engineering journals.

The compacted mass of debris which results from the impact of the upper block with the floor immediately below is very dense, and is also accelerating downward (remember gravity) and impacting the next floor.
Within a couple of seconds, this rubble constitutes the main crush-front, leaving the upper block largely out of the impact zone.

This would mean that the primary mode of the destruction of the upper block floor pans would be
a) they're being lifted off their truss seats by the debris zone and impacting the ceiling(next floor above)
b) lower section column sections spearing through the debris zone

[tempesta29]

As I said before, your inability to recognize what was happening is not my fault.

How about some calculations to back that up? How about some facts and figures, such as the tonnage of material from the towers that ebded up not within the footprint versus the amount that did.

The videos are our only evidence at this point. The videos indicate tremendous energy and tremendous lateral debris ejections. The mass of the upper section is most definitely not increasing or gathering. If the lower sections are producing lateral ejections then the upper section must also be ridding its mass laterally, so this is very far from being a collapsing mass that is growing. Not to mention that the steel and concrete core grew tapered larger as it progressed down the structure, providing more resistance approaching ground level.

Pretty much except for the hat truss which would allow the upper bolck to remain relatively intact for a bit longer.
There are other differences as well. The floor pans of the uppersection are being taken off their truss seats upward(wrt to the seats themselves)while the lower floors were being pushed downward and had to bend those seats over. Not sure how much effect that might have had.

10 stories with a hat truss versus 100 stories and an enlarging core structure. Where would you put your money if you were a betting man?

Its exiting out the sides in much the same way that apile of gravel forms an inverted cone that widens as more get piled on. Except that in this case there is the constraint of the floor area and if something falls past it then its off into free air.

Nonsense. Gravel falls down when it is piled on. These ejections are symmetric around all sides of both buildings and are absolutely horizontal. There is no measurable downward angle. So no, they are nothing alike.

So there is AT LEAST a minimum mass of falling debris that is always within the walls AND its velocity is increasing AND thus the momentum of that mass is increasing.

A conclusion based on nothing introduced as evidence in this discussion. And what does "at least a minimum mass" mean? It sounds redundant.

Is this the 'a pile of debris cannot exert the force of a solid object' strawman so favoured by 9/11 conspiracists?

The reason a loose collection of debris has not the dynamic force of a solid object is that it impacts another object over a longer period. This is why a front end loader operator will slowly empty the bucket into a truck rather than dump the whole thing as quickly as he could.(the truck driver/owner might punch his lights out). However its mass , of course, remains the same. Furthermore, in this case, by the time the material causing the collapse is primarily loose debris the velocity of this debris was much greater so you now minimize the effect of a more drawn out time of impact on each floor pan. Greater velocity means shorter time to get the same impact force from a loose debris impact.

First, I don't know why you call it a straw man. A straw man is a misrepresentation of an argument. That loose debris exerts less impact force than solid mass is a fact. These aren't metal washers being stacked up on pole; this is literally exploding mass being blown in all radial directions, so let's not pretend it's something it isn't. Not only is mass being blown outward with massive force, the falling mass is being destroyed and losing its prior ability to exert force downward.

AND,,,,,, again,,,,,, the vast majority of this mass and impact force(dynamic load) is hitting the floor pans, NOT the axis of the columns. THEREFORE the floors fail. There may be some force due to pressurized air as well but I do not subscribe to that as having a significant effect.

No floors=no lateral support=column failure

Absolute unfounded hogwash. You have no clue what the vast majority of this mass is hitting. The failure occurs at the core and that is where the overwhelming predominance of resistance is overcome as it collapses. The core is constant and tapered structure. And your little equation is ridiculous: the column does not just instantly fail without floor pans.

And why exactly do we see so much pulverized concrete? What force is creating this, the failure of lateral supports? Enjoy trying to support that argument.

I have looked at the 'evidence' and have seen nothing to dissuade me from the senario I put forth. I have also not seen you employ any science whatsoever, instead choosing personal incredulity as your guide.
You bandy about terms like 'decelleration', 'resistance' and speak of Newtons third law of motion but have demonstrated time and again your lack of understanding of these and other things.

If you knew how such terms were spelled, you might more accurately demonstrate your understanding of such terms (or perhaps you're doing just that).

Anyway, your above paragraph is pure ad hominem. I can't be bothered to respond to much more of it.

Lastly, my question still stands, and your attempt to deflect is noted, but let's break it down.

1) When the initial collapse occurs, what is happening to the columns at that level? In answering this question I do not care whether you are invoking explosives being used to sever the columns or if they bend and buckle due to heat and increased load due to other failed columns.
If in the pristine structure a column was a straight line through these floors what does that line look like at initial failure?

You answered your own question: core columns are being severed. I do not think there is any significant degree of buckling taking place because I do not believe that the upper section is applying any significant degree of force on the core structure below it.

2) Given that the load on any floor was transfered to the columns via the truss seats, would you expect all floors to be essentially the same (aside from the handful of floors that used heavy beams rather than lightweight trusses)?

Same in terms of what?

3) Do you know the principal of long slender column buckling and the need for lateral bracing? Are you aware that the floor trusses provided this lateral bracing between the core column system and the perimeter columns system?
What is the result of the removal of lateral bracing?

Are you implying that the absence of lateral support on a given level would have caused instant failure (and apparently pulverization)? I hope not.

[GlennB]

The videos indicate tremendous energy and tremendous lateral debris ejections. The mass of the upper section is most definitely not increasing or gathering.

Photos such as this

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/WTC1feefall.jpg

demonstrate that the collapse was progressing at noticeably less than g acceleration. The pieces of building you see circled are being slowed by air-resistance only, which we'll call 'free-fall' for now.

If what you say about debris not accumulating during collapse is true then we should see a veritable rain of steel members - representing all the steel for each new floor being destroyed - pouring down ahead of the collapse zone, as they would be in free-fall just like those pieces in the still above. We don't see this. You're wrong.

[adkinsjr]

They're meant to avoid such ejections for what reason? And how would that reason apply to this situation? And have buildings of these design ever been destroyed in such a manner?

So why on Earth would the objectives of professional CDs apply here?

Uh...because in CDs you don't have to launch material laterally with really intense explosives. Why would you use explosives that are beyond what is necessary to knock out the columns?

Richard Gage tells us that the conspirators decided to use really intense explosives such as to hurl beams laterally at 65mph. But before he explains all this, he sort of hints at a very obvious problem with his laughably preposterous hypothesis:

"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."-Richard Gage

Ok Richard, so we just need to cut these beams with thermite, and the noise control problem is solved. Oh but wait, we have more from Gage!

"The explosives had to be so intense such as to hurl these beams at 65 mph laterally, landing five hundred feet away."
-Richard Gage

Oh, so now they are using explosives; and we're not talking about just any explosives, these are REALLY INTENSE explosives (which means REALLY INTENSE explosions that would give a way your project :rolleyes:) that don't only knock out the beams (the beams which are already cut by the thermite, and that could be blasted with less intense eplosives like those used in other CD's where the columns are NOT ejected laterally) but actually EJECT them laterally at 65 mph landing 500 feet away!

[adkinsjr]

If what you say about debris not accumulating during collapse is true then we should see a veritable rain of steel members - representing all the steel for each new floor being destroyed - pouring down ahead of the collapse zone, as they would be in free-fall just like those pieces in the still above. We don't see this. You're wrong.

Exactly :)

I think I can predict what Tempesta is going to say next, and I can't wait!

[alienentity]

Exactly :)

I think I can predict what Tempesta is going to say next, and I can't wait!

But other genius, I-know-I'm-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong truthers insist that there was hardly any steel in the debris piles after the collapses; that the steel was dustified and floated away.

It's all so confusing - therm*te, nanothermite, high explosives, dustification, hologram planes and cruise missiles.

And all the truthers are right. We know this because they say so.:boggled:

[Dave Rogers]

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the upper section is destroying the lower then the opposite is happening. Net force is still downward because of gravity, but in the case of the North Tower, the lower section comprises roughly 10x the mass of the upper section. Newton's Third Law precludes such an event.

At last. Newton's Third Law. Sooner or later, all WTC deniers end up with this fallacy. At least you're honest enough to fantasise that debris is being lost from the collapse immediately as it's created, which is what is actually required for this to be valid. Unfortunately, that is just fantasy, because you have no data for the rate of ejection of debris and no justification for any assumptions about it.

But, hey, you don't bother with actually working out numbers, do you? You just decide which one you want to be bigger, then pretend it is. I call it the unevaluated inequality fallacy, and you've mastered it very quickly. Congratulations.

Dave

[GlennB]

Exactly :)

I think I can predict what Tempesta is going to say next ....

Damned if I can.

I've lost track of whether he believes in thermite that melted the steel or explosives that blew the buildings to crap.

[Sam.I.Am]

Hushaboom is both an incendiary AND an explosive. It was invented by Boris and Natasha who went to work for the NWO back in the 60's. Why do you think that they stopped making all of those teevee shows about them?

[dafydd]

Damned if I can.

I've lost track of whether he believes in thermite that melted the steel or explosives that blew the buildings to crap.

We don't know what he believes,our latest truther refuses to present a complete theory,only opinions based on sheer ignorance. Par for the course.

[BasqueArch]

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the upper section is destroying the lower then the opposite is happening. Net force is still downward because of gravity, but in the case of the North Tower, the lower section comprises roughly 10x the mass of the upper section. Newton's Third Law precludes such an event.

Are you claiming the upper sections aren't being destroyed?

The falling upper 12 stories did not crush the 98 stories below it. The falling upper 12 stories crushed the 1 story below it.

[twinstead]

The falling upper 12 stories did not crush the 98 stories below it. The falling upper 12 stories crushed the 1 story below it.

This is always the way I have looked at it. A lot of truthers complain that the mass above should be stopped by the mass below, but the mass below was only one floor at a time; it could never have supported the mass above.

[dafydd]

The falling upper 12 stories did not crush the 98 stories below it. The falling upper 12 stories crushed the 1 story below it.

A six year old child could understand that,why can't truthers?

[Grizzly Bear]

A six year old child could understand that,why can't truthers?

Because the word "progressive":

# gradually advancing in extent
# a tense of verbs used in describing action that is on-going

does not exist in their vocabulary. They only want "simultaneous" because the other word is inconvenient for them.

[tempesta29]

If what you say about debris not accumulating during collapse is true then we should see a veritable rain of steel members - representing all the steel for each new floor being destroyed - pouring down ahead of the collapse zone, as they would be in free-fall just like those pieces in the still above. We don't see this. You're wrong.

Straw man. I never suggested debris didn't accumulate at all, but there is nothing to suggest that this mass is some growing entity. It isn't. Not only is mass going in all directions out of the path of collapse, but this upper section itself is being destroyed and losing some of its ability to exert force downward. We can't quantify how much mass is being added to this collapse, but we know three things: a lot of mass is being lost by these ejections, the upper section is losing ability to exert downward force as its destroyed, the upper section loses momentum every time it creates this new falling mass. And the bonus to it all is: the core structure gets larger and stronger as the collapse progresses.

I.e, there is nothing to suggest this collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it falls.

[tempesta29]

The falling upper 12 stories did not crush the 98 stories below it. The falling upper 12 stories crushed the 1 story below it.

And then the resisting 97 stories crushed one story above it. See how physics work?

[Dog Town]

and the bonus to it all is: The core structure gets larger and stronger as the collapse progresses.

I.e, there is nothing to suggest this collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it falls.

stundied!

[Dave Rogers]

And then the resisting 97 stories crushed one story above it. See how physics work?

And then you had 11 storeys and two storeys' worth of rubble, falling on 97 storeys below. What happened next, (a) or (b)?

(a) The two storeys' worth of rubble impacted the 97 storeys at a large relative velocity, damaging them severely. The 11 storeys, however, were falling at the same speed as the rubble, and so did not suffer anywhere near as damaging an impact.

(b) Two storeys' worth of rubble suddenly turned a right angle in mid-air, jumped 100 feet sideways, and got out of the way of the 11 storeys so it could fall unimpeded on the 97 storeys.

Incidentally, this is yet another classically amusing truther contradiction. They claim that debris from the Twin Towers couldn't be thrown 300 feet sideways in a drop of 1,000 feet to hit another building unless there were explosives involved, yet at the same time they claim that debris must inevitably be thrown 100 feet sideways in a drop of only 12 feet if there were no explosives.

Bizarre.

Dave

[twinstead]

And then the resisting 97 stories crushed one story above it. See how physics work?

LOL

[ozeco41]

....They claim that debris from the Twin Towers couldn't be thrown 300 feet sideways in a drop of 1,000 feet to hit another building unless there were explosives involved,...
The question I have often asked of truthers is "How do you get explosives to throw large pieces of steel hundreds of feet?"

Remember that the claim that explosives threw the steel comes in the form of an alleged truther 'proof' that steel cutting explosives were used to cut steel....

....and cutting explosives are not the best 'throwers' of big lumps of anything.

[GlennB]

Negative. Mass is not necessarily stacking up. Mass in the Twin Towers is being blown laterally with incredible force. If anything, mass is decreasing. Since we both understand Newton's Third, we know that the upper section is being destroyed in virtually the same way as the lower section of each tower. Mass is essentially being blown outward; it isn't stacking up like pancakes. It's being broken up and dispersed and its force decreasing as collapse progresses.

The 'meteorites' show us that the debris was stacking up like pancakes.

Meanwhile the bolded section gives the lie to the following:

Straw man. I never suggested debris didn't accumulate at all, but there is nothing to suggest that this mass is some growing entity. It isn't.



Which by itself is also a bizarre statement. Maybe it is accumulating but it isn't necessarily growing?? That makes no sense.

[DGM]

LOL
I wonder if Dave will finally "understand physics" (Is that like hearing Jimi)?


:cool:

[dafydd]

Straw man. I never suggested debris didn't accumulate at all, but there is nothing to suggest that this mass is some growing entity. It isn't. Not only is mass going in all directions out of the path of collapse, but this upper section itself is being destroyed and losing some of its ability to exert force downward. We can't quantify how much mass is being added to this collapse, but we know three things: a lot of mass is being lost by these ejections, the upper section is losing ability to exert downward force as its destroyed, the upper section loses momentum every time it creates this new falling mass. And the bonus to it all is: the core structure gets larger and stronger as the collapse progresses.

I.e, there is nothing to suggest this collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it falls.

Are you skipping all the physics lessons in school? Priceless,and well worthy of a stundie.

[WildCat]

And then the resisting 97 stories crushed one story above it. See how physics work?
Do you see the bolded word?

How does gravity factor into your physics?

[WildCat]

stundied!
That one is a beauty!

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
How about some calculations to back that up? How about some facts and figures, such as the tonnage of material from the towers that ebded up not within the footprint versus the amount that did. .

The videos are our only evidence at this point. The videos indicate tremendous energy and tremendous lateral debris ejections. The mass of the upper section is most definitely not increasing or gathering.

Still no facts ot figures, just your own personal estimation?
As pointed out above the dense debris that was ejected should be ahead of the dustfall and IF your contention is correct then we should have seen a vast number of such heavy debris pieces falling past the collapse zone. We do not and thus your contentiuon fails on the evidence YOU choose to put forth. The videos.

If the lower sections are producing lateral ejections then the upper section must also be ridding its mass laterally, so this is very far from being a collapsing mass that is growing. Not to mention that the steel and concrete core grew tapered larger as it progressed down the structure, providing more resistance approaching ground level.

As pointed out above there was a comapcted devris zone between upper and lower blocks. Yes both upper and lower blocks would be coming apart at approximately the same rate but all this does is make the debris zone larger and larger.
I cannot envision how you would think that I was sayiong that the upper block was getting heavier. I was saying that the amount of loose debris impacting lower floors was getting heavier and heavier with each destroyed floor.
,,,,and again,,,,,,, the size of the columns simply does not enter into it since the falling mass has no way of having its force transfered to those columns unless the floors are capable of doing so, and it is patently obvious that a floor was only designed to carry and transfer the forces that could normally be expected to impinge upon ONE floor, not the mass of a dozen floors.
Quote:
Pretty much except for the hat truss which would allow the upper bolck to remain relatively intact for a bit longer.
There are other differences as well. The floor pans of the uppersection are being taken off their truss seats upward(wrt to the seats themselves)while the lower floors were being pushed downward and had to bend those seats over. Not sure how much effect that might have had. 10 stories with a hat truss versus 100 stories and an enlarging core structure. Where would you put your money if you were a betting man?

Not on anything you designed that's for sure.
HOW DOES THE FORCE of the falling mass get transfered to, carried by, supported by, impinged upon the columns?

I have lost count on the number of times you have ignored or dodged this question.

Quote:
Its exiting out the sides in much the same way that a pile of gravel forms an inverted cone that widens as more get piled on. Except that in this case there is the constraint of the floor area and if something falls past it then its off into free air.
Nonsense. Gravel falls down when it is piled on. These ejections are symmetric around all sides of both buildings and are absolutely horizontal. There is no measurable downward angle. So no, they are nothing alike.

Ummm, you don't even grasp what I said do you? I said that gravel will fall and pile up into a cone shape that gets larger and in the case of debris in the towers if it piled such that he bottom of the pile was greater than the floor area it would be ejected off the sides. Its an analogy T, but you failed to grasp even this simple concept.

Quote:
So there is AT LEAST a minimum mass of falling debris that is always within the walls AND its velocity is increasing AND thus the momentum of that mass is increasing.
A conclusion based on nothing introduced as evidence in this discussion. And what does "at least a minimum mass" mean? It sounds redundant.

whhoo boy,,,,
YOU said that the mass was being ejected and the only way for LESS mass to hit the second failed floor than hit the first failed floor would be for MORE mass to be ejected than was created by the destruction of that first floor. THIS is the only way for a collapse to be brought to a halt SINCE we already have that the falling massd that hit the first floor was sufficient to fail it.
I then supposed that it might , in some possible scheme of things, be that the falling mass did not change in quantity, that ejections equaled accumulation (of loose debris-material no longer connected to the structure) BUT even if that is so then it is also obvious that the velocity is increasing. YOU EVEN know this since the collapse acellerated. It does not matter that it did not become a lesser acelleration since if acelleration is greater than zero then velocity must increase over time. Increased velocity results in increased momentum/kinetic energy and if mass remains the same and was sufficient at velocity 'v', to fail a floor then that same mass at velocity 'v+delta v' will be more than sufficient to do so to the next floor.

Quote:
Is this the 'a pile of debris cannot exert the force of a solid object' strawman so favoured by 9/11 conspiracists?
First, I don't know why you call it a straw man. A straw man is a misrepresentation of an argument. That loose debris exerts less impact force than solid mass is a fact. These aren't metal washers being stacked up on pole; this is literally exploding mass being blown in all radial directions, so let's not pretend it's something it isn't. Not only is mass being blown outward with massive force, the falling mass is being destroyed and losing its prior ability to exert force downward.

Really? Mass of some quantity m exerts less force if it is a loose collection of particles than if its a solid?
What physics realm does this oddity take place in?

I explained why a falling loose collection of particles exerts less dynamic force than a solid. You did not read past the words 'straw man' did you?

Quote:
AND,,,,,, again,,,,,, the vast majority of this mass and impact force(dynamic load) is hitting the floor pans, NOT the axis of the columns. THEREFORE the floors fail. There may be some force due to pressurized air as well but I do not subscribe to that as having a significant effect.

No floors=no lateral support=column failure Absolute unfounded hogwash. You have no clue what the vast majority of this mass is hitting.

Tell me how it would be possible foir the vast majority of the falling mass to hit axially on the columns and avoid the floors!

,,,,more later, going back to work

[ElMondoHummus]

This is always the way I have looked at it. A lot of truthers complain that the mass above should be stopped by the mass below, but the mass below was only one floor at a time; it could never have supported the mass above.

While Twinstead is correct, there's something - two something's, actually - that absolutely must be made clear, and unfortunately answers only involving relative masses lead to a misapprehension by folks who aren't as familiar with the arguments.

The first thing is that the floors were never "load bearing" - i.e. being able to handle structural load - to begin with. They were only able to handle their own weight plus the incidental amount placed on them by the occupants and contents. Twinstead of course knows this, since he's been around here even longer than I have, but that may not be clear to others less familiar with the Towers construction. The columns were what bore the loads on the Tower's structure. But what ended up taking the majority of the falling mass? Not the top ends of the columns, but the floors themselves. Which almost certainly wouldn't have been strong enough to hold the mass of those floors had they been gently placed on one of them, nevermind dropped on top of them like they were. Heck, Bazant showed that the columns themselves weren't, so there's no way the floors would've been.

The second thing is that, once that first floor below the fire/impact zone in each tower failed, there was nothing left to hold the columns below upright. Truthers miss the fact that the greater mass below the top sections were dependent on their construction to keep things upright. But when a floor above goes missing, the next floor's columns suddenly become waaaaaaaaaaay short of being able to stand up straight, nevermind resist what's coming down on it. So even if one of those floors were normally able to bear the load of the upper section on its own, how could anyone reasonably expect it to when the perimeter columns are peelling off and the interior ones can't stay in place because of that? This is more than just a question of mass because the connections keeping that lower masses in place suddenly get compromised when the series of columns above become able to move side to side. So when that falling mass impacts, forget what the ideal strength is, the real strength of that floor - already insufficient - has in fact been further weakened.

At any rate, Twinstead is correct, but people not as familiar with how the Towers were built need to understand why he's right. And it's because the construction of the towers set up a situation to where the failure of those individual floors one-by-one mattered. Those one-by-one failures tore away column support, and that made the lower floors more vulnerable, nevermind the fact that the falling mass was already enough to overwhelm their maximum strength.

Does that make sense? Engineers and architectural types, feel free to correct what I may have gotten wrong or explained poorly. Or expound further.

[ozeco41]

...Does that make sense? Engineers and architectural types, feel free to correct what I may have gotten wrong or explained poorly. Or expound further.A good enough explanation for this engineer. http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif

[ElMondoHummus]

and the bonus to it all is: The core structure gets larger and stronger as the collapse progresses.

I.e, there is nothing to suggest this collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it falls.
stundied!

That one is a beauty!

OMG, that's a facepalmer.

Not only was it growing in size as it accumulated failed floors and their contents, it was also accelerating. That's what gravity does: It does move things at a constant speed, it accelerates them.

My God, that's just incredible, that error.

[ElMondoHummus]

A good enough explanation for this engineer. http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif

:D

[tempesta29]

Still no facts ot figures, just your own personal estimation?
As pointed out above the dense debris that was ejected should be ahead of the dustfall and IF your contention is correct then we should have seen a vast number of such heavy debris pieces falling past the collapse zone. We do not and thus your contentiuon fails on the evidence YOU choose to put forth. The videos.

It works both ways: you don't have data regarding how much debris "stacked up," as you're claiming. We have to use the available evidence.

As pointed out above there was a comapcted devris zone between upper and lower blocks. Yes both upper and lower blocks would be coming apart at approximately the same rate but all this does is make the debris zone larger and larger.
I cannot envision how you would think that I was sayiong that the upper block was getting heavier. I was saying that the amount of loose debris impacting lower floors was getting heavier and heavier with each destroyed floor.
,,,,and again,,,,,,, the size of the columns simply does not enter into it since the falling mass has no way of having its force transfered to those columns unless the floors are capable of doing so, and it is patently obvious that a floor was only designed to carry and transfer the forces that could normally be expected to impinge upon ONE floor, not the mass of a dozen floors.

Yet despite your theory, acceleration remains constant. If momentum were increasing exponentially then so would measurable acceleration.

Not on anything you designed that's for sure.
HOW DOES THE FORCE of the falling mass get transfered to, carried by, supported by, impinged upon the columns?

I have lost count on the number of times you have ignored or dodged this question.

That's because the question is so vague as to be incomprehensible. Keep asking it though; maybe it will just spontaneously make sense.

Ummm, you don't even grasp what I said do you? I said that gravel will fall and pile up into a cone shape that gets larger and in the case of debris in the towers if it piled such that he bottom of the pile was greater than the floor area it would be ejected off the sides. Its an analogy T, but you failed to grasp even this simple concept.

Yeah. Can't imagine how I misinterpreted the oft-cited "pile of gravel" analogy. Now that I understand it, it's even less clear. In fact, it may be the most ridiculous unsupported assertion I've seen yet: debris in the towers piled up like a pile of gravel rocks and ejected itself horizontally at up to 125 miles per hour.

You slay me.

whhoo boy,,,,
YOU said that the mass was being ejected and the only way for LESS mass to hit the second failed floor than hit the first failed floor would be for MORE mass to be ejected than was created by the destruction of that first floor. THIS is the only way for a collapse to be brought to a halt SINCE we already have that the falling massd that hit the first floor was sufficient to fail it.
I then supposed that it might , in some possible scheme of things, be that the falling mass did not change in quantity, that ejections equaled accumulation (of loose debris-material no longer connected to the structure)

Sure, some of the newly-destroyed structure is accelerating downward, no doubt. And?

On one hand we have the upper sections being destroyed by their lower counterparts. On another hand we have large quantities of debris, including massive steel girders being ejected laterally at high speeds. Furthermore we have a core structure that is growing larger and stronger further towards the base. What part of this, in your mind, equates to some constant increase in mass?

But that's neither here nor there at this point:
BUT even if that is so then it is also obvious that the velocity is increasing. YOU EVEN know this since the collapse acellerated. It does not matter that it did not become a lesser acelleration since if acelleration is greater than zero then velocity must increase over time. Increased velocity results in increased momentum/kinetic energy and if mass remains the same and was sufficient at velocity 'v', to fail a floor then that same mass at velocity 'v+delta v' will be more than sufficient to do so to the next floor.

You've created a grave error in logic. You attempt to reverse engineer your argument from available data, and you fail miserably. You claim that since velocity is increasing, according to our measurement of acceleration, that this means that this mass' momentum is increasing, which is undeniable. However what you fail to realize is that you have no proof that mass "was sufficient at velocity 'v' to fail" any floors. Your argument presupposes this. You can't use this to support your argument because it in and of itself is a theory that requires support (seeing as it cannot be proven absolutely).

I propose that the upper sections are not causing any structural failures to the lower sections, that, in fact, the upper sections are simply passing through debris as the lower structure is destroyed by controlled means. The constant rate of acceleration confirms this, both through the crash zone and as the upper section encounters greater resistance from the enlarging core, an upper section, mind you, that is being destroyed in the process, further limiting its ability to apply constant force to the lower structure.

Throughout all of this: acceleration remains constant. It simply doesn't fit your theory that the upper sections are destroying the lower, a theory which, we've just seen, you've used to support another theory.

Really? Mass of some quantity m exerts less force if it is a loose collection of particles than if its a solid?
What physics realm does this oddity take place in?
I explained why a falling loose collection of particles exerts less dynamic force than a solid. You did not read past the words 'straw man' did you?

We're talking about structural failure here. Time is incredibly important. Exerting a force over a period of time may not yield any failure but that same force exerted over a shorter period (impact force) may in fact yield failure. Mass in both instances is the same yet the results are different. Are you under the impression that this fact is irrelevant? I assure you it is just the opposite.

We're talking about a falling mass whose force allegedly overcame resistance of the structure below. The upper mass, however, is losing its ability to exert force as it descends because it is being broken up. Then add in the fact that the core structure is growing slightly larger further down. This factors do not allow for constant acceleration: both factors work against the collapsing mass' net force.

Tell me how it would be possible foir the vast majority of the falling mass to hit axially on the columns and avoid the floors!

,,,,more later, going back to work

I answered this with my response to your earlier question #3.

[tempesta29]

OMG, that's a facepalmer.

Not only was it growing in size as it accumulated failed floors and their contents, it was also accelerating. That's what gravity does: It does move things at a constant speed, it accelerates them.

This isn't a rubber ball falling through the air, nor is it a set of washers accumulating on a wire. You are aware there are other actions at play here, right?

My God, that's just incredible, that error.

So says the spectator/cheerleader with no actual counterargument whatsoever. If there is some error, then let's hear you argument. Or you could just pay attention and learn, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[twinstead]

You need to go on the academic lecture curciut, tempesta--I'm curious as to how many people you would need to tell you that you don't know what you are talking about before you actually start saying, "hmmmm"

[Thunder]

delete

[Thunder]

Not only is mass going in all directions out of the path of collapse, the upper section is losing ability to exert downward force as its destroyed,

And the bonus to it all is: the core structure gets larger and stronger as the collapse progresses.

I'm sorry..........WHAT????????????

:jaw-dropp


...so as the upper section collapses it gets smaller & weaker...but it made the core from top to bottom get LARGER and STRONGER?

Einstein would find these new laws of Physics amazing.

[Grizzly Bear]

OMG, that's a facepalmer.

Not only was it growing in size as it accumulated failed floors and their contents, it was also accelerating. That's what gravity does: It does move things at a constant speed, it accelerates them.

My God, that's just incredible, that error.

Not to mention that the size of the core columns is irrelevant. The connections joining the core with the floor systems broke first.

[tempesta29]

I'm sorry..........WHAT????????????

:jaw-dropp

It's larger on a horizontal plane. It's a tapering structure, therefore its ability to resist force is greater.

[GlennB]

deleted. probably talking bollocks

[ElMondoHummus]

This isn't a rubber ball falling through the air, nor is it a set of washers accumulating on a wire. You are aware there are other actions at play here, right?

So says the spectator/cheerleader with no actual counterargument whatsoever. If there is some error, then let's hear you argument. Or you could just pay attention and learn, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Excuse me?

This is what you said:

and the bonus to it all is: The core structure gets larger and stronger as the collapse progresses.

I.e, there is nothing to suggest this collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it falls.

Force=mass times acceleration. The mass of the upper segment is increasing as the upper segment falls and gathers floors. If you think the mass shedding outside the perimeter is sufficient to negate the weight of each floor - or to put it another way, if you think that for every floor the upper section hits, it's ejecting the equivalent of that entire floor minus some small amount to account for the increasing column sizes - that is up to you to demonstrate. And you haven't even attempted to do so yet.

Furthermore, acceleration: After 1 second, the rate is 32 some feet per second squared (9.3 m/s2), minus some utterly miniscule amount due to "resistance". After 2 seconds, it's 64 some feet/s2. At 3 seconds, it's 96-some ft/s2. At 4, 128-some ft/s2. Get the picture? Both your mass and your velocities at each floor is increasing (that's exactly what "acceleration" is), so that means that force is increasing. Unless your definition of constant power is increasing force, you're wrong. Get it?

Now, you think that the increase of the core columns' size has anything to do with this? Why is that? You've just demonstrated that you've completely ignored what I wrote about the construction of the towers, as well as what has been known for years about what failures occurred. The floorspan to column connection is the important factor here! You really think the falling masses were expending all of their force against the columns? This in the face of how llittle area the columns present to the falling mass when compared to how much the floors do?

Mass and acceleration velocity due to gravitational acceleration is increasing, yet you posted what you did above? Now who has no idea what he's talking about? Not me. It's you. All you. If I had asked you to identify what the weak point of the core column - floor truss - perimeter column assembly was, would you have been able to identify it prior to today?

The person clearly demonstrating he has no idea what he's talking about is you. So you had better start playing nice around here and learning what we're trying to teach you. You have demonstrated that you have no idea what the basic structure of the towers were, let alone how they failed. Because of that, you have some seriously remedial reading to do. For starters:

Failure mode in WTC towers (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104641): Exactly what it says.
Steel failing in hydrocarbon fires (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=136603): More remedial reading.
Floor trusses & bolts (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=157938): Lots of noise, but the signal regarding the floor to column connections is worth the effort.
Post that provides a starting point for you to calculate mass shedidng during the collapse (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2956501#post2956501).
New mass and potential energy calculation for WTC1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87583): A more detailed treatment of energy and momentum issues. By a truther, no less.
A Review of Energies And How They Are Dissipated of WTC 1 & 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584): Exactly what it says it is.
Steel structures cannot globally collapse due to gravity alone (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271): While there's much noise compared to signal, it's a memorable thread addressing the question of the lower segments supposedly having the abilities to arrest the upper segments fall in either tower.

The "Layman's terms" threads:

Layman's terms please! Tower collapse issue (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108273): Thread discussing issues of momentum, collapse times, and collapse mechanisms.
WTC collapses - Layman's terms again (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111454): Notable for posts from Architect and others regarding the proper descriptions of the towers designs, as well as the collapses.

Why did the WTC columns pull in (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267)? Important for what it teaches about the basics regarding the floor truss to column design.
A thread and two posts that help with understanding the "resistance" the lower floors gave to the upper segments (this'll help with the notion of the lower part of the core increasing in size and strength in that they point out how to deal with the issue qualitatively):

Szamboti's Missing Jolt Paper (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140639): Notable for a truther's attempts to describe what resistance should be seen, and others corrections of his misapprehensions.
Kenneth Kuttler's letter on the Twin Towers collapse times (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3150796#post3150796): Mostly discusses something else, but includes some discussion of resistence.
Dave Roger's post specifically addressing point decelerations - "resistance" - quantitatively.

And a trio of threads involving forum member Architect discussing the details of the towers design and failure modes with a particularly hardheaded truther:

The Heiwa Challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=138715)
More Real Structures for Heiwa (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151206)
Continuation - The Heiwa Challenge (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153252)

Yes. All that. You are, at minimum 4 years or so behind everyone else here. You need to understand all of that - all of it. Those are the threads where we eventually worked out our understanding of how the towers were built, and you are not up to speed. You at least skim those threads for the basics before you continue on about what your misunderstandings of the collapses are. We've dealt with all of this before, and you are NOT going anywhere previous truthers haven't gone - and failed - before.

Learn. And drop the arrogance. If you don't like getting made fun of, then don't post nonsense.

[chipmunk stew]

The debris pile is clearly highest within the buildings' footprints. Their peaks are nearly as high as some of the surrounding buildings. Higher, if you include the sub-basements.

Look up WTC LIDAR images produces by NOAA.

Example:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/manhattan-lidar092701.jpg

[chipmunk stew]

It's larger on a horizontal plane. It's a tapering structure, therefore its ability to resist force is greater.
It doesn't matter how big the cross-sections were: They were bearing a negligible portion of the impact.

If you had a platform hooked on the sides of some poles and then dropped a bunch of rubble on it, how much of the force of impact would be taken up by the poles?

[triforcharity]

Straw man. I never suggested debris didn't accumulate at all, but there is nothing to suggest that this mass is some growing entity. It isn't. Not only is mass going in all directions out of the path of collapse, but this upper section itself is being destroyed and losing some of its ability to exert force downward. We can't quantify how much mass is being added to this collapse, but we know three things: a lot of mass is being lost by these ejections, the upper section is losing ability to exert downward force as its destroyed, the upper section loses momentum every time it creates this new falling mass. And the bonus to it all is: the core structure gets larger and stronger as the collapse progresses.

I.e, there is nothing to suggest this collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it falls.

Ah, yes, the old "rubble can't exert as much force as something solid" failure.

Oh, got any math to back up the hilited portion?

[jaydeehess]

As I indicated above,,,, a continuation of my response,,,,,,,,

The failure occurs at the core and that is where the overwhelming predominance of resistance is overcome as it collapses. The core is constant and tapered structure. And your little equation is ridiculous: the column does not just instantly fail without floor pans.

1) the predominant source of resistance to collapse simply cannot be the columns since in order for that to be the case the loads would have to somehow be predominantly transfered to those columns. The ONLY way for that to occur is to have the floor pans do so via their truss seats BUT those floor trusses and truss seats simply cannot survive the impact of the mass falling on them and thus fail before arresting the motion of the falling mass and thus do not transfer the force of impact (a transfer of momentum over time) and so the columns is left there doing essentially nothing to arrest the collapse.

Columns, long columns, simply cannot support themselves unless they meet certain criteria of base widths to height and mass ratios. The columns of the WTC towers were NOT designed to support themselves, the core system was NOT designed to support itself and the perimeter system of columns was NOT designed to support itself. This is one reason why the structure was built by constructing the core and the perimeter and the floor pans in conjunction rather than build the core first and then surround it with floors and a perimeter system of columns.
Remove floor trusses from several levels in a row and the columns become unstable. Add to this the fact that the trusses are being ripped away as opposed to carefully removed , nad the huge buffeting that would be taking place and the columns have no chance of remaining intact.

And why exactly do we see so much pulverized concrete? What force is creating this, the failure of lateral supports? Enjoy trying to support that argument.

Multi-ton chunks of concrete and steel ramming together at highway velocities over 1000 feet makes this collapse an enormous high speed rock crusher(seems to me I've said this before).

I suppose you expect to tell me that huge amounts of high explosives were loaded into the concrete floors(each and every floor) and that is what caused the concrete to break up?

Quote:
I have looked at the 'evidence' and have seen nothing to dissuade me from the senario I put forth. I have also not seen you employ any science whatsoever, instead choosing personal incredulity as your guide.
You bandy about terms like 'decelleration', 'resistance' and speak of Newtons third law of motion but have demonstrated time and again your lack of understanding of these and other things. If you knew how such terms were spelled, you might more accurately demonstrate your understanding of such terms (or perhaps you're doing just that).

Oops , two 'c's one 'l'. You caught me. However de-celleration, however you wish to spell it, is not a scientific term. 'Acceleration' is a vector and contains therefore its direction with out needing a separate term for the negative direction. In this case we usually define + as the direction in which gravity acts.

Anyway, your above paragraph is pure ad hominem. I can't be bothered to respond to much more of it.

Yep, everything after the word 'guide' is ad hom. Basically my personal estimation of you.
However you do in fact demonstrate that you are operating from a standpoint of personal incredulity and not much else. A point made prior to the word 'guide'

Quote:
Lastly, my question still stands, and your attempt to deflect is noted, but let's break it down.

1) When the initial collapse occurs, what is happening to the columns at that level? In answering this question I do not care whether you are invoking explosives being used to sever the columns or if they bend and buckle due to heat and increased load due to other failed columns.
If in the pristine structure a column was a straight line through these floors what does that line look like at initial failure? You answered your own question: core columns are being severed. I do not think there is any significant degree of buckling taking place because I do not believe that the upper section is applying any significant degree of force on the core structure below it.
I did say I did not care, for this part of the questions, whether or not you considered it explosive severing of the columns or any other process.
You did not answer the highlited part of the question. We can agree that the columns were not in pristine shape at this moment of initial collapse. I want to know what shape they are in. Are they severed but the two parts still in line with each other, or severed and not in line?

Quote:
2) Given that the load on any floor was transfered to the columns via the truss seats, would you expect all floors to be essentially the same (aside from the handful of floors that used heavy beams rather than lightweight trusses)? Same in terms of what?

Was each floor pan constructed the same as each other floor pan from top to bottom? (ignoring the handfull of mechanical floors)

I thought the question was clear before but perhaps it is more so now.

:
3) Do you know the principal of long slender column buckling and the need for lateral bracing? Are you aware that the floor trusses provided this lateral bracing between the core column system and the perimeter columns system?
What is the result of the removal of lateral bracing? Are you implying that the absence of lateral support on a given level would have caused instant failure (and apparently pulverization)? I hope not.

Instant? No, I have never said that. In fact it is well known that part of the core of one towers survived the collapse but in such unstable condition that it soon succumbed to exactly the forces I describe here. It also serves to illustrate that core collapse lagged floor and perimeter collapse, again, exactly as long column buckling would be expected to proceed given the senario I have repeated a dozen or so times in this thread.
,,, oh,,, yeah,,, that would be using those videos you say are the evidence that should be used.

[jaydeehess]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Still no facts ot figures, just your own personal estimation?
As pointed out above the dense debris that was ejected should be ahead of the dustfall and IF your contention is correct then we should have seen a vast number of such heavy debris pieces falling past the collapse zone. We do not and thus your contentiuon fails on the evidence YOU choose to put forth. The videos. It works both ways: you don't have data regarding how much debris "stacked up," as you're claiming. We have to use the available evidence.

Well how much do you suppose the upper block weighed at initial collapse?

As collapse proceeds how, what mechanism, is employed to move enough mass away from the footprint of the next lower floor pan? Certainly not explosives. I have seen unmatted solid granite rock faces blown apart using hundreds of pounds of dynamite. A few pieces, some the size of a desk, thrown a hundred feet but the enormous majority of the mass remains within a dozen feet of its original position and most of it does not more more than a few inches. Despite this the granite is in pieces a few inches to a few feet in size.
You are supposing that massive amounts of concrete and steel are being accelerated horizontally while being destroyed?
Seems to me this should have been a lot noisier than it was, what with all these high explosives going off.
Quote:
As pointed out above there was a compacted debris zone between upper and lower blocks. Yes both upper and lower blocks would be coming apart at approximately the same rate but all this does is make the debris zone larger and larger.
I cannot envision how you would think that I was sayiong that the upper block was getting heavier. I was saying that the amount of loose debris impacting lower floors was getting heavier and heavier with each destroyed floor.
,,,,and again,,,,,,, the size of the columns simply does not enter into it since the falling mass has no way of having its force transfered to those columns unless the floors are capable of doing so, and it is patently obvious that a floor was only designed to carry and transfer the forces that could normally be expected to impinge upon ONE floor, not the mass of a dozen floors. Yet despite your theory, acceleration remains constant. If momentum were increasing exponentially then so would measurable acceleration.
The collpase zone is not visible through the entire collapse as debris falling outside the towers quickly obscures the collapse zone.
In addition I have been saying all along that the collapse of interior floors preceeded the visible collapse of the perimeter columns and that preceeded the collapse of the core. It is quite possible that the interior collapse accelerated at first at 0.6g and reached something higher before hitting the earth.
What evidence do we have of this?
Well the supposed 'squibs' , windows being blown out well ahead of the visible collapse zone would be one indication of internal collapse occuring first.


Can't imagine how I misinterpreted the oft-cited "pile of gravel" analogy. Now that I understand it, it's even less clear. In fact, it may be the most ridiculous unsupported assertion I've seen yet: debris in the towers piled up like a pile of gravel rocks and ejected itself horizontally at up to 125 miles per hour.

How do you arrive at "125 MPH"?

Quote:
whhoo boy,,,,
YOU said that the mass was being ejected and the only way for LESS mass to hit the second failed floor than hit the first failed floor would be for MORE mass to be ejected than was created by the destruction of that first floor. THIS is the only way for a collapse to be brought to a halt SINCE we already have that the falling massd that hit the first floor was sufficient to fail it.
I then supposed that it might , in some possible scheme of things, be that the falling mass did not change in quantity, that ejections equaled accumulation (of loose debris-material no longer connected to the structure)
Sure, some of the newly-destroyed structure is accelerating downward, no doubt. And?

,,, and that newly destroyed mass will now impact the next floor down along with the origianl falling mass of debris minus whatever portion was ejected.
Unless that ejected mass is >> than the newly accumulated mass the collapse cannot be arrested.
On one hand we have the upper sections being destroyed by their lower counterparts. On another hand we have large quantities of debris, including massive steel girders being ejected laterally at high speeds. Furthermore we have a core structure that is growing larger and stronger further towards the base. What part of this, in your mind, equates to some constant increase in mass?

The increase is in unconnected (to lower block columns) mass the vast majority of which must be moving in the direction gravity dictates,, towards the next lower floor pans.


Quote:
BUT even if that is so then it is also obvious that the velocity is increasing. YOU EVEN know this since the collapse acellerated. It does not matter that it did not become a lesser acelleration since if acelleration is greater than zero then velocity must increase over time. Increased velocity results in increased momentum/kinetic energy and if mass remains the same and was sufficient at velocity 'v', to fail a floor then that same mass at velocity 'v+delta v' will be more than sufficient to do so to the next floor. You've created a grave error in logic. You attempt to reverse engineer your argument from available data, and you fail miserably. You claim that since velocity is increasing, according to our measurement of acceleration, that this means that this mass' momentum is increasing, which is undeniable. However what you fail to realize is that you have no proof that mass "was sufficient at velocity 'v' to fail" any floorsYour argument presupposes this. You can't use this to support your argument because it in and of itself is a theory that requires support (seeing as it cannot be proven absolutely)..

Bazant showed that a first approximation was that the forces on the first floor impacted would be 30X greater than required to fail the floor trusses.

That is documentary evidence whereas you employ bald assertion. If both 'theories' cannot be proven absolutly then the one with the supporting documentary and circumstantial evidence is the most likely.
Yours fails on this account.

I propose that the upper sections are not causing any structural failures to the lower sections, that, in fact, the upper sections are simply passing through debris as the lower structure is destroyed by controlled means. The constant rate of acceleration confirms this, both through the crash zone and as the upper section encounters greater resistance from the enlarging core, an upper section, mind you, that is being destroyed in the process, further limiting its ability to apply constant force to the lower structure.

If acceleration remained constant then that indicates a constant balance of forces.



Quote:
Really? Mass of some quantity m exerts less force if it is a loose collection of particles than if its a solid?
What physics realm does this oddity take place in?
I explained why a falling loose collection of particles exerts less dynamic force than a solid. You did not read past the words 'straw man' did you?
We're talking about structural failure here. Time is incredibly important. Exerting a force over a period of time may not yield any failure but that same force exerted over a shorter period (impact force) may in fact yield failure. Mass in both instances is the same yet the results are different. Are you under the impression that this fact is irrelevant? I assure you it is just the opposite.

Nope, that IS what I have been saying here.
I am saying that the mass alone was probably enough to fail the floor pans and that the impact forces simply added to that. The most significant 'resistance' was the momentum transfer to previously unmoving mass.

We're talking about a falling mass whose force allegedly overcame resistance of the structure below. The upper mass, however, is losing its ability to exert force as it descends because it is being broken up. Then add in the fact that the core structure is growing slightly larger further down. This factors do not allow for constant acceleration: both factors work against the collapsing mass' net force
The size of the columns enters NOT into resisting the internal collapse since they cannot be taking much of the mass or impact of the falling debris.
,and so I ask again


Quote:
Tell me how it would be possible for the vast majority of the falling mass to hit axially on the columns and avoid the floors!

I answered this with my response to your earlier question #3.
I do not recall that ever being the case. Please quote the post number and the first few words of this response.

[tempesta29]

Excuse me?

This is what you said:

Force=mass times acceleration. The mass of the upper segment is increasing as the upper segment falls and gathers floors. If you think the mass shedding outside the perimeter is sufficient to negate the weight of each floor - or to put it another way, if you think that for every floor the upper section hits, it's ejecting the equivalent of that entire floor minus some small amount to account for the increasing column sizes - that is up to you to demonstrate. And you haven't even attempted to do so yet.

What is it exactly that you think is accumulating? The perimeter steel girders are launching away from the structure. The concrete core is being blown into dust. Is the dust gathering? Also, you are aware that the upper section is being destroyed in almost exactly the same manner too right? What impact would you estimate that this would have on its ability to apply force?

Furthermore, acceleration: After 1 second, the rate is 32 some feet per second squared (9.3 m/s2), minus some utterly miniscule amount due to "resistance". After 2 seconds, it's 64 some feet/s2. At 3 seconds, it's 96-some ft/s2. At 4, 128-some ft/s2. Get the picture? Both your mass and your velocities at each floor is increasing (that's exactly what "acceleration" is), so that means that force is increasing. Unless your definition of constant power is increasing force, you're wrong. Get it?

Now, you think that the increase of the core columns' size has anything to do with this? Why is that? You've just demonstrated that you've completely ignored what I wrote about the construction of the towers, as well as what has been known for years about what failures occurred. The floorspan to column connection is the important factor here! You really think the falling masses were expending all of their force against the columns? This in the face of how llittle area the columns present to the falling mass when compared to how much the floors do?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. I've read through these two paragraphs and it almost seems like you're mistaking me for a different poster. I looked back and all I remember you ever saying was "OMG that's a facepalmer". It was as compelling then as it is now. You must have been proud about your very basic math paragraph, but it has no bearing on anything I'm discussing. You need to recognize, in writing, where someone's main points are and then directly refute them. You say I ignored something you said about the construction of the towers. Again, huh?

Mass and acceleration velocity due to gravitational acceleration is increasing, yet you posted what you did above? Now who has no idea what he's talking about? Not me. It's you. All you. If I had asked you to identify what the weak point of the core column - floor truss - perimeter column assembly was, would you have been able to identify it prior to today?

Again, what is with these bizarre, quasi-rhetorical, off-topic questions from people around here? Are you trying to flex muscle or do you consider the above relevant to the conversation. Instead of saying things like "not me--you, yep all you not me!", perhaps you should try and tie some of this stuff direction into the argument.

The person clearly demonstrating he has no idea what he's talking about is you. So you had better start playing nice around here and learning what we're trying to teach you. You have demonstrated that you have no idea what the basic structure of the towers were, let alone how they failed. Because of that, you have some seriously remedial reading to do.

What a bizarre rant. I feel like I'm being talked down to by a 4th grade teacher. What is this? What aspect about the towers' construction have I misinterpreted exactly?

Yes. All that. You are, at minimum 4 years or so behind everyone else here. You need to understand all of that - all of it. Those are the threads where we eventually worked out our understanding of how the towers were built, and you are not up to speed. You at least skim those threads for the basics before you continue on about what your misunderstandings of the collapses are. We've dealt with all of this before, and you are NOT going anywhere previous truthers haven't gone - and failed - before.

Frankly, I'm not too concerned with how you've assessed my knowledge on this subject. I disagree with your assessment, and since I'm sort of "numero uno" when it comes to deciding what I do, I'll go ahead and ignore all of your very gracious advice. With respect with my short time on this forum, I have no rapport with you as a poster. I don't think we've ever had a legitimate back and forth once here. You 'OMG facepalm'd' a post of mine in this thread without explanation, I challenged that, and then you quoted--not the original post I made--but the 2 or 3 sentence rebuttal. Not only that, but you've responded to that short post of mine with a long, drawn-out lecture. It's odd, to say the least.

Learn. And drop the arrogance. If you don't like getting made fun of, then don't post nonsense.

And your giant ad hominem sludge fest finally comes to an end.

[davefoc]

My apologies, perhaps this is obvious, but is this thread still about about thermite demolition of the WTC or is it about thermite plus explosive demolition of the WTC or is it about any CD theory of the WTC?

[Dave Rogers]

Yet despite your theory, acceleration remains constant. If momentum were increasing exponentially then so would measurable acceleration.

That is the stupidest statement I've heard from a truther in a long while. Weren't you paying attention in high school physics classes, when they told you that the acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass of the object accelerated? A chap called Galileo figured this one out in the sixteenth century. You've got about half a millennium to catch up on.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

What is it exactly that you think is accumulating?

How do you think the debris created near the centre of the building is being shifted 100 feet sideways so it can exit the sides of the buildings? How are the core columns, the floor trusses and the heavyweight concrete slabs forming the floors in the core magically jumping sideways? And what on earth makes you think all the concrete was pulverised in the initial impact? This is another of the idiotic strawman arguments truthers throw around. Even your high priest Steven Jones has admitted that a lot of the concrete ended up in large chunks, and you've posted pictures yourself of enormous lumps of debris that were found inside the building footprint.

I feel like I'm being talked down to by a 4th grade teacher.

That would be a good start.

Dave

[GlennB]

The concrete core is being blown into dust. Is the dust gathering?

What "concrete core" ?? The only concrete was in the floors.

[twinstead]

Oh God. Not the concrete core. We don't want another "thread that shall not be named"!

(and ixnay on the ebar ray)

[Dave Rogers]

I mentioned C4 once, but I think I got away with it.

Dave

[Travis]

What is it exactly that you think is accumulating? The perimeter steel girders are launching away from the structure. The concrete core is being blown into dust. Is the dust gathering? Also, you are aware that the upper section is being destroyed in almost exactly the same manner too right? What impact would you estimate that this would have on its ability to apply force?

Ignoring that you think there's a concrete core I would like to point that the disattachment of the debris to each other does not impact it's force. Force is still only mass times acceleration and that mass--whether an intact structure, a pile of debris or a huge collection of sand--is still there traveling down.

Or maybe you will argue that the acceleration itself is illusory.

Do I need to bring up the youtube clip of the car being crushed by water?

[ElMondoHummus]

What is it exactly that you think is accumulating? The perimeter steel girders are launching away from the structure. The concrete core is being blown into dust. Is the dust gathering? Also, you are aware that the upper section is being destroyed in almost exactly the same manner too right? What impact would you estimate that this would have on its ability to apply force?

Before I start: The core was not concrete. The floor pans were. That right there is illustrative of how you're unaware of basic facts regarding the towers.

And further: You seriously believe that as the collapse front progresses, everything being impacted is launching outside the perimeter of the towers? You believe that, as the collapse progresses, the equivalent of each floor it hits gets thrown out the side? And furthermore, that the core you've misidentified as concrete is "being blown to dust", which oddly enough you equate to meaning that it loses mass?

The size and location of the debris piles alone is sufficient to refute your assertion. So are videos of the collapses that show pieces ejecting, but not entire floors worth of mass.

Again, links on that very issue:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93119
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87583
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87749
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81444&page=29
The falling debris from the upper segments are impacting the floors and tearing them away from the columns. With no lateral bracing, the columns not only lose load bearing ability, but due to their length, compromise load bearing capacity on floors below. That is essential to understand. So even if you were correct about no mass being accumulated, you still have the falling initial mass accelerating as it dropped.


I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. I've read through these two paragraphs and it almost seems like you're mistaking me for a different poster. I looked back and all I remember you ever saying was "OMG that's a facepalmer". It was as compelling then as it is now. You must have been proud about your very basic math paragraph, but it has no bearing on anything I'm discussing. You need to recognize, in writing, where someone's main points are and then directly refute them. You say I ignored something you said about the construction of the towers. Again, huh?


You have no idea because you don't even understand rudimentary physics, nor do you know what happened to the towers that day. You've demonstrated this amply. You wrote:
Straw man. I never suggested debris didn't accumulate at all, but there is nothing to suggest that this mass is some growing entity. It isn't.
And

I.e, there is nothing to suggest this collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it falls.
Yet both demonstrably false. You not only provided zero evidence for your claim that "this mass is some growing entity", but you said that in the face of knowledge of how big and where the debris piles were, as well as videos that do not support your contention. I addressed your point and refuted it.

You also claimed that the collapsing mass is growing more powerful as it fell. I addressed that claim directly and refuted it too.

You cannot simply pretend that a direct refutation did not occur. All it takes is for someone to click the post link and see for themselves that your point was refuted.


Again, what is with these bizarre, quasi-rhetorical, off-topic questions from people around here? Are you trying to flex muscle or do you consider the above relevant to the conversation. Instead of saying things like "not me--you, yep all you not me!", perhaps you should try and tie some of this stuff direction into the argument.


The links I provided are directly relevant to your misunderstanding. They directly address the towers construction as well as the collapse dynamics. You need to read them because they are on topic.

Quit acting like a small child and pretending to not hear. We are directly telling you that you do not understand the towers construction nor the events involved in the collapse. We are giving you resources to aid your understanding. That is as on topic as it gets.


What a bizarre rant. I feel like I'm being talked down to by a 4th grade teacher. What is this? What aspect about the towers' construction have I misinterpreted exactly?


No, you are being talked to by people who understand the collapses better than you. You want to bring maturity into it, then understand that mature argument requires presentation of facts and evidence. You've provided incorrect facts and practically no evidence.

And the aspect of the towers construction you do not understand has already been given to you. What do you think those links are for? Again: The critical understandings are as follows:

The columns are the load bearing elements of the towers, not the floors.
The floors are merely bolted to the columns.
The columns depend on the floors for lateral stability. Furthermore, they're not set up to resist lateral movement without the floors.
Therefore, remove the floors, the columns no longer can resist being moved side to side. Move them side to side enough, they can buckle. And once they buckle, they have zero load bearing ability.
There is more, but those are the essentials. Work through the consequences of what occurs when the upper segments masses hit and destroy the floors.


Frankly, I'm not too concerned with how you've assessed my knowledge on this subject. I disagree with your assessment, and since I'm sort of "numero uno" when it comes to deciding what I do, I'll go ahead and ignore all of your very gracious advice.


Your disagreement has no basis. This is not my knowledge. This is a summary of the knowledge generated by researchers who've studied the collapse. If you have zero understanding of how the towers were built - and so far, you're showing that you do - then you have zero basis for your arguments.

This is even ignoring the fact that you've not substantiated your claims about mass ejection quantitatively.


With respect with my short time on this forum, I have no rapport with you as a poster. I don't think we've ever had a legitimate back and forth once here. You 'OMG facepalm'd' a post of mine in this thread without explanation, I challenged that, and then you quoted--not the original post I made--but the 2 or 3 sentence rebuttal. Not only that, but you've responded to that short post of mine with a long, drawn-out lecture. It's odd, to say the least.


You're getting the lecture because I see all the posts you've made, not just the ones addressed to me, and you're demonstrating that you do not yet have the understanding needed to analyze the collapses. Furthermore, others here have also correctly identified which of your posts I addressed, so you seem to be the only one who can't figure out what I was referring to.

I identified which post I thought was facepalm worthy, quoted it, and even explained why. If you don't understand that, then that's your problem to work through.


And your giant ad hominem sludge fest finally comes to an end.

There's a difference between ad hom and a straight put down: One is "your argument is invalid because you're ignorant", the second is "your argument is incorrect because of (X,Y,Z), and you're ignorant". I commit the latter.

Read those links. I don't care what you think of me, but if you want to understand what we know here, you'd better read those links. They directly cover what you need to know to debate with people here.

[Thunder]

The concrete core is being blown into dust.

how can you say something as inaccurate as this, and expect folks to take your comments on the WTC collapses seriously?

Its a very honest question.

[Edx]

They're meant to avoid such ejections for what reason? And how would that reason apply to this situation? And have buildings of these design ever been destroyed in such a manner?

So why on Earth would the objectives of professional CDs apply here?

Uh...because in CDs you don't have to launch material laterally with really intense explosives. Why would you use explosives that are beyond what is necessary to knock out the columns?

Richard Gage tells us that the conspirators decided to use really intense explosives such as to hurl beams laterally at 65mph. But before he explains all this, he sort of hints at a very obvious problem with his laughably preposterous hypothesis:

"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."-Richard Gage

Ok Richard, so we just need to cut these beams with thermite, and the noise control problem is solved. Oh but wait, we have more from Gage!

"The explosives had to be so intense such as to hurl these beams at 65 mph laterally, landing five hundred feet away."
-Richard Gage

Oh, so now they are using explosives; and we're not talking about just any explosives, these are REALLY INTENSE explosives (which means REALLY INTENSE explosions that would give a way your project :rolleyes:) that don't only knock out the beams (the beams which are already cut by the thermite, and that could be blasted with less intense eplosives like those used in other CD's where the columns are NOT ejected laterally) but actually EJECT them laterally at 65 mph landing 500 feet away!


Hehe exactly

I made a video on this ages ago which shows how ridiculously contradictory Gage is in this regard.

So anyone wanting to hear Gage saying those stupid things above should watch it:

MusSulcJwSk

[dafydd]

My apologies, perhaps this is obvious, but is this thread still about about thermite demolition of the WTC or is it about thermite plus explosive demolition of the WTC or is it about any CD theory of the WTC?

We don't know. Tempesta has yet to present any facts or a theory.

[davefoc]

I am sure almost everybody participating in this thread was aware of this video of Richard Gage and his cardboard boxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

I wasn't until I participated in this thread. Wow, is it possible that a lot of the truthers do not understand how incredibly stupid that video was? Is this kind of thing part of the driver for the 9-11 CD nonsense?

I saw the R. Mackey video before I saw this video. One unfortunate thing about the R. Mackey video is that it is probably too technical and as such inaccessible to anybody that could not immediately look at that video and realize it was stupid. Refuting that video for a less technical audience just requires a simple discussion of the problems with scaling accompanied by some kind of drawings or video.

[twinstead]

Did we ever establish how thermite demolitions work?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by tempesta29 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6751487#post6751487)
The concrete core is being blown into dust.

Tempesta29- would you kindly provide us with photographic evidence of the WTC towers having a concrete core.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by tempesta29 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6751487#post6751487)
The concrete core is being blown into dust.

Tempesta29- would you kindly provide us with photographic evidence of the WTC towers having a concrete core.

I'm sure there is a Photoshopped image somewhere on the net on a truther's site.

[jaydeehess]

Did we ever establish how thermite demolitions work?

I do not believe so. We have been sidetracked by tempesta's thermite + explosives contention and concentrated on the explosives part.

In the opening page DC actually linked to an actual 9/11 conspiracist that managed to sever vertical steel with thermite. Closest thing to backing Jones that has ever been seen. It does still not address many problems with the thermite cutting CD contention though, not the least of which is proper timing to sever columns at many locations over no more than 30 seconds. I posted on this in post #40 and one or two after that.

tempesta has not been clear about what the role of thermite is, at least not that I recall. Now that we are onto pulverising concrete and throwing steel at a horizontal velocity of 125 MPH (where that number comes from has yet to be shown) we must have abandoned the topic of thermite in this thread entitled "...thermite demolitions...??

I asked for a thread spilt but nothing happened and it would be a very large endevour to try to do so now so it might as well remain as is.

[twinstead]

I do not believe so. We have been sidetracked by tempesta's thermite + explosives contention and concentrated on the explosives part.

In the opening page DC actually linked to an actual 9/11 conspiracist that managed to sever vertical steel with thermite. Closest thing to backing Jones that has ever been seen. It does still not address many problems with the thermite cutting CD contention though, not the least of which is proper timing to sever columns at many locations over no more than 30 seconds. I posted on this in post #40 and one or two after that.

tempesta has not been clear about what the role of thermite is, at least not that I recall. Now that we are onto pulverising concrete and throwing steel at a horizontal velocity of 125 MPH (where that number comes from has yet to be shown) we must have abandoned the topic of thermite in this thread entitled "...thermite demolitions...??

I asked for a thread spilt but nothing happened and it would be a very large endevour to try to do so now so it might as well remain as is.

One would think that establishing how thermite demolitions would work would be job number 1 for proponents of thermite demolitions of the WTC, but that's just me.

[Sam.I.Am]

One would think that establishing how thermite demolitions would work would be job number 1 for proponents of thermite demolitions of the WTC, but that's just me.

Yes. One would, wouldn't one. You're not alone there. However the Term*te concept has the exact same hurdles to get over as the explosives one does (and more). The mechanism/shielding/whatever used for protecting it from the impacts and ensuing fires must remain unnoticed to the untrained eye in a public place filled with people who are already familiar with that space. Therm*te adds the extra problem of the simple fact that a whole lot more material (mass-wise) has to be hidden making the protective mechanism/shielding/whatever that much larger.

I have yet to see anything from anyone that meets those very basic yet critical requirements. I'm still not holding my breath waiting.

[davefoc]

OK, so the use of therm*te for causing the collapse of the WTC has now been proven except that:
1. No plausible methodology for the installation of the therm*te has been produced.
2. No signs of beams cut by therm*te were found.
3. No mechanism for igniting the therm*te was found.
4. No plausible mechanism for synchronizing the failure of structural elements cut by therm*te has been produced.
5. No individuals associated with purchasing, installing or igniting the therm*te have been found.
6. There were no signs of therm*te type burning in any of the videos of the WTC collapse.
7. There are no reports before or after the WTC collapse of anybody using therm*te in the controlled demolition of a structure.

However there is a video showing that with a sufficient amount of therm*te and the attachment of an appropriate device therm*te can cut through a steel beam.