Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

[kylebisme]

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3619/startlight.jpg

Here is a video for reference sake (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&ei=k0

KsSpX2Mab0qgKTxZWtAw&q#), if someone knows of a better one, please share it and I will add it to this post.

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions below:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?

[rwguinn]

Gibberish.
Makes absolutely no sense.
The "orientation of the force" is vertical. The rest of the post is meaningless from a physics pov.

[Arus808]

Lets see, the top is leaning toward the area that the plane impacted with, meaning that the support columns there have lost its total strength and/or are missing.


dont see an issue here since the top came straight down anyway

[~enigma~]

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?
Askew.
2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?It transmits the force vertically as all laws of physics dictate it should.
3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?
Yes we see a vertical force in the destruction of the tower as all laws of physics dictate we should. Any more stupid questions?

[R.Mackey]

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?

Go straight to the source.

1) "Tilt of approximately 3 to 4 degrees to the south and 7 to 8 degrees to the east occurred before bulding section fell." NIST NCSTAR1-6D, Table E-1.

2) A graphical representation of the stress at the moment of collapse initiation (predicted) is given in NCSTAR1-6D, figures 4-120.

3) Not directly, no. The columns above can only transmit a force through them equal to their individual buckling strength, which does not account for the magnitude or complexity of impacts at the interface. Force and destruction are also not directly related quantities in any event.

[UNLoVedRebel]

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions bellow:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?

The Education system in Tampa must suck.

[Quad4_72]

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3619/startlight.jpg

Here is a video for reference sake (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&ei=k0%3Cbr%20/%3E%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%0AKsSpX2Mab0qgKTxZWtAw&q#), if someone knows of a better one, please share it and I will add it to this post.

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions bellow:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?

What complete and utter garbage. Who the hell made this trash up? This is awful. The top portion fell down on the lower portion and crushed everything. Are you suggesting something else happened? Please provide proof for your claims.

[AJM8125]

"Tower Collapse Questions For Critical Thinkers to Shred"

Fixed the thread title for you.

[CHF]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.

Why do these people have a hard time with the concept of GRAVITY?

[Thunder]

i majored in geography. but even I understand why the top section didn't just tip over. this would have required the section on the other side of the impact literally lifting up and over the rest of the tower.

one side go up...while the other go down? that would have been impossible.

the side nearest impact began toppling first..and then brought the rest of the block with it.

duh!!!

[Thunder]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.


no..it would have had to been an UPWARD (45 degrees to the north) force. the opposite side of the tower would have to have been pushed up.

this could not have occured unless there were massive cables attached to the top of the tower....which would have literally "pulled" the tower northward.

i think i am right about this. again, geography major.

:)

[DGM]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.

Why do these people have a hard time with the concept of GRAVITY?
It's difficult when your only building experience involves Lego's.:D

[Reactor drone]

When looking at the tilt and determining whether the upper section would continue to tip over like a falling tree you need to consider the structure and how it's failing.

Initial failure is on the corner most damaged by the impact so that corner starts to accelerate downwards first and the tower pivots about the less damaged corner.

As the tilt progresses the columns on the less damaged side get bent and the loads that were passing straight down through them shift off axis and those columns fail,destroying the pivot point and causing that side of the building to start accelerating downwards.

With the whole upper mass now descending and encountering the resistance of the lower floors the angular momentum of the upper section is reduced/redirected.

At least from a simplistic layman's point of view.

:)

[Quad4_72]

I should not have even responded in this thread. It's so incredibly dumb. The mods should definitely remove the thread for just for being excessively stupid.

[~enigma~]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.

Why do these people have a hard time with the concept of GRAVITY?
Because if you remove it you get Gravy.

[kylebisme]

Lets see, the top is leaning toward the area that the plane impacted with, meaning that the support columns there have lost its total strength and/or are missing.

dont see an issue here since the top came straight down anyway
If you took a bucket of loose dirt, set a brick on it, and wet down one corner, would you expect the brick to sink straight down?

"Tilt of approximately 3 to 4 degrees to the south and 7 to 8 degrees to the east occurred before bulding section fell." NIST NCSTAR1-6D, Table E-1.
That was before collapse, I am askinging about the picture which shows durring.


A graphical representation of the stress at the moment of collapse initiation (predicted) is given in NCSTAR1-6D, figures 4-120.

Do they substantiate how thier values were derived anywhere?


3) Not directly, no. The columns above can only transmit a force through them equal to their individual buckling strength, which does not account for the magnitude or complexity of impacts at the interface. Force and destruction are also not directly related quantities in any event.
What are you suggesting creates destruction other than accelerated mass?

[dropzone]

Kyle, down is down, and it remains so wherever you go. Things that drop at an angle will, as soon as the force that pushed them at an angle is eliminated, will drop down. Straight down. Which is pretty much from there to the center of the Earth. The same down as when you drop a shoe. Sure, there's some adjustment because the Earth is rotating, but in the greater scheme of things that ain't worth ****, and down continues to be down.

[Sherman Bay]

kylebisme, what's your point? What are you trying to prove? That the tower didn't collapse? Went up? Sideways?

[kylebisme]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.
I said nothing to suggest that, and I'd appreciate it if you could restrain yourself from lumping me together with people who insist our government planned 9/11 and other such crackpottery.
i majored in geography. but even I understand why the top section didn't just tip over. this would have required the section on the other side of the impact literally lifting up and over the rest of the tower.

one side go up...while the other go down? that would have been impossible.
Unless the axis it tilted on was it's corner, it would be impossible for one side not to come up as the other went down, and at least according to the NCSTAR1-6D figure 4-120, the axis it titled on was more towards the center.


the side nearest impact began toppling first..and then brought the rest of the block with it.

Please see my brick in mud example above.

[Juniversal]

If you took a bucket of loose dirt, set a brick on it, and wet down one corner, would you expect the brick to sink straight down? :confused:

And I thought using a pizza box as an analouge for the Twin Towers was bad lol...

[kylebisme]

Kyle, down is down, and it remains so wherever you go. Things that drop at an angle will, as soon as the force that pushed them at an angle is eliminated, will drop down.
What force are you suggesting pushed the top portion of the tower to the side, and what force are you suggesting eliminated it?


Straight down. Which is pretty much from there to the center of the Earth. The same down as when you drop a shoe.
When falling though air, sure, but we aren't talking about a mass being dropped though air here. A better example would be one I made as my first post here after seeing the picture I used for the one I posted above"

For a simplified example; imagine taking a milk carton and flatting down the top, and then dropping a brick on it. Assuming the brick came down perfectly centered on the carton, that carton could conceivably crumple down fairly evenly to some extent or another. However, far more likely is the possibility that variations on the structural integrity of the carton would cause it to give way towards one direction or the other, resulting in the brick sliding off towards the weakest side. The only way you are going to crush the whole carton down into it's footprint is by dropping the brick perfectly square on top of it from a massive height, or wetting the carton down to the point of almost completely compromising its structural integrity.

Of course the top of the tower wouldn't just slide off unless it broke free, but the angle of the upper portion of the mass has direct relationship to the distribution of force on the lower section regardless.

[DavidJames]

If you took a bucket of loose dirt, set a brick on it, and wet down one corner, would you expect the brick to sink straight down? You know what is both sad and funny at the same time? CTboy is serious and thinks he's making some kind of earth shattering point.

Tell me CTboy. Is there are reason you are using dirt and water instead of formulas for the components of the structure, like educated adults? I'm guessing because you have zero education or practical experience in an relevant disciplines. But since you are a 9/11 CTists, you need someway to try and argue your belief. You can prove me wrong of course, but I'm guessing you won't.

My suggestion would be read something about the subject that's not from a CT site. Will you do that?

[Thunder]

fresh fish

[kylebisme]

kylebisme, what's your point? What are you trying to prove? That the tower didn't collapse? Went up? Sideways?
I'm simply pointing out an apparent inconsistency between the observed collapse and the commonly accepted explanation for that collapse.

And I thought using a pizza box as an analouge for the Twin Towers was bad lo...
Please feel free to present a whatever you might consider a better one.

[Thunder]

Please see my brick in mud example above.

:D

no, truther, I will not.

[BigAl]

I'm simply pointing out an apparent inconsistency between the observed collapse and the commonly accepted explanation for that collapse.

Please feel free to present a whatever you might consider a better one.

www.nist.gov

Nobody with actual expertise and knowledge agrees with you.

The burden is on you to explain what is wrong.

You are welcome to ask questions.

[Justin39640]

when things are that big they behave much differently than something the size of a milk carton
its called scale

youre suggesting that there is a "fulcrum point"
how is the lower structure supposed to support all of the weight of the upper structure on that one spot? (or a far fewer % of support points)

what happens when that support fails?
things fall straight down cause there is no more support for the fulcrum

thats it

[triforcharity]

I just tried your little experiment (Im drunk and a little bored, what can I say) I followed exactly what you said, even got my sober friends to help.

Guess what?? Now, all I have is a bucket full of mud and a wet brick in the same position that it was when I set it in the bucket. Imagine that.

Is this going to be like your baseball analogy?? That one had fail written all over it too.

[Arus808]

If you took a bucket of loose dirt, set a brick on it, and wet down one corner, would you expect the brick to sink straight down?

wtf analogy is this? this is plain stupid. ARE YOU freaking kidding? :jaw-dropp

BTW, You gave me my first stundie nomination

[kylebisme]

Is there are reason you are using dirt and water instead of formulas for the components of the structure, like educated adults?
Because the example I addresses "straight down" argument well enough. Of course you are free to present formulas to argue otherwise if you care too.


I'm guessing because you have zero education or practical experience in an relevant disciplines.
Actually I studied architecture into college and moved to physics from there. I wound up not being able to continue paying tuition due to financial issues and my refusal to accumulate debt, so while I have no degree, I do have some education and practical experience in the matters at hand.

[Arus808]

Because the example I addresses "straight down" argument well enough. Of course you are free to present formulas to argue otherwise if you care too.

actually, your "example" does nothing of the sort, except to provide a note worthy stundie nomination

[triforcharity]

I think he means that he TRIED to apply, but they rejected his application because they could tell that he was a failure then. Good caall for them.

[Lupie]

The "official story" is not a story, it's fact. Terrorists murdered over 3000 people that day. You are a broken record. Get over yourself Kyle, this crap is boring.

[triforcharity]

ARUS, You bastage!! I was SO getting ready to STUNDIE that, but you beat me to it!! DAMN YOU Arus, daamn you.....:D

[Justin39640]

here is a few very simple models i made

wathc the second part how far over this one leans and what happens when the lower support fails
bGWoCcQJSNQ
(odd, the music on this one was removed for copyright a few weeks ago and now its back???:confused:)

[Arus808]

^_^ ... and I was late in considering in nominating it as a stundie. Only when I watched a commercial did I realize "DAMN that was a stundie".

MY first nomination!! yeah me!

[PixyMisa]

Because the example I addresses "straight down" argument well enough. Of course you are free to present formulas to argue otherwise if you care too.
Formulas and figures have been provided in the NIST report. If you disagree, it is up to you to provide your own formulas and figures, not just bad analogies.

Actually I studied architecture into college and moved to physics from there.
Then you should have no trouble with the required calculations, right?

Right?

And yet, I see a complete absence of calculations in your posts thus far.

[kylebisme]

www.nist.gov

Nobody with actual expertise and knowledge agrees with you.

The burden is on you to explain what is wrong.

NIST didn't even analyse the collapse itself, only proposed conditions which they claim lead to it.
when things are that big they behave much differently than something the size of a milk carton
its called scale
How did you derived this conclusion?

youre suggesting that there is a "fulcrum point"
how is the lower structure supposed to support all of the weight of the upper structure on that one spot? (or a far fewer % of support points)

what happens when that support fails?
things fall straight down cause there is no more support for the fulcrum

thats it
That would be it, if only the orientation of the mass above the fulcrum was reflected in the destruction below.
I just tried your little experiment (Im drunk and a little bored, what can I say) I followed exactly what you said, even got my sober friends to help.

Guess what?? Now, all I have is a bucket full of mud and a wet brick in the same position that it was when I set it in the bucket. Imagine that.

You used too light of a brick and/or the dirt was too compacted.

[PixyMisa]

How did you derived this conclusion?
What, are you actually questioning this?!

Start with the square-cube law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law), or better, read On Being the Right Size (http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html).

That would be it, if only the orientation of the mass above the fulcrum was reflected in the destruction below.
Reflected how?

You used too light of a brick and/or the dirt was too compacted.
So?

[triforcharity]

Nope, I used a brick from my grandparents house that is around 100 years old, and I dug the dirt up, put it in the bucket. However it fell in there, is how it landed.

What do YOU conclude it would do.

BTW, I will be needing some help from an educated source to upload this experiment to YouTube. Any help from an EDUCATED person should suffice. Read: NOT FROM YOU KYLE!!

[kylebisme]

Formulas and figures have been provided in the NIST report.
Please present specficly what you elude to here.

Then you should have no trouble with the required calculations, right?

Right?
My calculous is rather rusty, but it came quite easy to me the first time around and has always been a simple matter to brush up when needed.
And yet, I see a complete absence of calculations in your posts thus far.
Lacking omnipresence, I'm rather sort on data to work with.

[kylebisme]

here is a few very simple models i made

wathc the second part how far over this one leans and what happens when the lower support fails
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGWoCcQJSNQ

Any chance you'd be willing to provide a copy of your model?
Formulas and figures have been provided in the NIST report.
Please present specficly what you elude to here.

Then you should have no trouble with the required calculations, right?

Right?
My calculous is rather rusty, but it came quite easy to me the first time around and would be a simple matter to bush up where needed.
And yet, I see a complete absence of calculations in your posts thus far.
Lacking omnipresence, I'm rather short on the necessary data to start from.

[Matthew Cline]

If you took a bucket of loose dirt, set a brick on it, and wet down one corner, would you expect the brick to sink straight down?

If the brick tipping over caused the dry soil to take on the consistency of the wet soil, then yes, it would. That's what would have to happen for your analogy to be consistent with what happened to the tower, since the very process of the tower starting to tip over destroyed what was causing it to tip over.

What force are you suggesting pushed the top portion of the tower to the side, and what force are you suggesting eliminated it?

The fulcrum point, created by uneven damage to the tower, transfered angular momentum to the part of the tower above the damage. As the top of the tower tilted it deformed the fulcrum point until it was destroyed, and once the fulcrum point was destroyed the tilting portion of the tower stopped gaining angular momentum, and it started falling straight down. While the top part of the tower still had some angular momentum (since angular momentum is conserved), that angular momentum wasn't enough to increase its tilt much more before gravity caused it to smash down into the rest of the tower beneath it.

[apathoid]

To the OP, I don't understand your point.

OK, there is some rotation of the upper mass...so what? It's still falling straight down; the pivot point of the rotation is near the area of the perimeter columns where there was observed buckling. If the pivot point was near the center mass, then I would expect the trajectory to be different, somewhat angular. But it wasn't, so the notion that the upper mass should have fallen somewhat sideways is incorrect.

Secondly, assuming that the rotation should have led to a more sideways trajectory(as the OP seems to think is the case), what caused the mass to "change course" back to straight down? I don't get it. Are you saying that controlled demolition nullifies the laws of physics? If the upper mass was indeed falling at an angle, rather than straight down, explosives or no explosives, that's where she woulda kept on going. Even if if was blown to bits with explosives on the way down, the mass would continue on its original course rather than where it went, which was straight down.

Or are you saying that the upper mass did continue falling sideways? If so, show me your evidence(which everyone seems to have missed until now and would nullify the truth movements contention that both buildings fell in their own footprints).

Or is this a "path of least resistance" type of argument? Please clarify what exactly you think is happening here.


To answer your questions.

1) What do you mean by orientation? Its rotation? Angular momentum? The upper mass is simply in a slight rotation, nothing more, nothing less.

2) Since the mass is falling straight down, it hits it. Rather squarely.

3) If you are asking.. "did the upper mass crush the lower mass?" ..then yes.

[PixyMisa]

Lacking omnipresence, I'm rather short on the necessary data to start from.
Here you go. (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/) Knock yourself out.

[DavidJames]

Actually I studied architecture into college and moved to physics from there. I wound up not being able to continue paying tuition due to financial issues and my refusal to accumulate debt, so while I have no degree, I do have some education and practical experience in the matters at hand.Based upon the arrogance and ignorance you exhibit in this thread I'd say you are a liar.

Of course you can prove me wrong, but I'm betting you won't. Or more accurately, can't.

[apathoid]

ARUS, You bastage!! I was SO getting ready to STUNDIE that, but you beat me to it!! DAMN YOU Arus, daamn you.....:D


Arus can't be a bastage. Oh and that's no way to talk to a lady. ;)

[triforcharity]

We really need an icon on the profiles for male and female, or maybe I need to actually look at people's profile.

My apologies to ARUS then.

Houkolele, or whatever the mods name is, I cannot remember whom, I thought he was a girl for some reason. Don't ask me why. I just did.

[kylebisme]

What, are you actually questioning this?!

Start with the square-cube law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law), or better, read On Being the Right Size (http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html).
I'm familiar with both principles, but am at a loss as how you are attempting to apply them here.

Reflected how?
Directly.
Nope, I used a brick from my grandparents house that is around 100 years old, and I dug the dirt up, put it in the bucket. However it fell in there, is how it landed.
Fell and landed? You didn't even follow my directions.

What do YOU conclude it would do.

The brick will lean over as it sinks into the wetter corner more than the dryer one, assuming you use a heavy enough brick and loose enough dirt.

[triforcharity]

Ok, just redid the experiment, and same thing happened.

I haven't found a way to make your experiment work. Maybe I should use a cinder block. Will post it when it becomes available.

[PixyMisa]

I'm familiar with both principles, but am at a loss as how you are attempting to apply them here.
That you don't understand how scaling principles apply tells us that you don't understand scaling principles.

A milk carton is about as structurally similar to a 400m office building as an ant is to a cow.

Directly.
Meaning what?

[triforcharity]

My calc is a little rusty means: My calc is completly wrong and was flawed from the time I thought in my head to do calculations. I cannot even find my calculator. But, I have a PB&J sammich so its cool, I am TOTALLY legit.

[BigAl]

NIST didn't even analyse the collapse itself, only proposed conditions which they claim lead to it.


Analyzing it past the point where we know it is self sustaining is pointless and theoretically impossible.

If someone pushed a bowl of spaghetti off the table and onto the floor, you'd find out why and how it went over the edge but how the stuff spread out on the way down and on the floor is pointless and can only be simulated statistically which is irrelevant for any specific instance, especially the mess on the floor.

You've given me an excuse to post something I wrote when I first got here and it hasn't been posted since. Looking at it now, I see I have to work WTC7, Benthan publishers and thermite/themate/nano-thermite into it.

Enjoy.


A Fable of Food and Conspiracy

The spaghetti hit the floor when nobody was looking.

The cat was a suspect and nobody had any reason to suspect the hamster.

What came to be known as the Spaghetti Incident continues to be followed with fascination by waiters, animal behaviorists, and other experts, worldwide. TV news stopped covering it after a few months except on the anniversary, which focused on menus and new restaurants, not the culprit.

To understand what happened, it didn't occur to anyone to calculate exactly how the spaghetti strands arranged themselves on the floor or try to work backwards from the floor to the plate on the table, strand by strand. Buying lots of identical plates, filling them with spaghetti and pushing them off the table was pointless. Explaining exactly how the mess landed on the floor is literally impossible in theory and in practice and it doesn't tell you anything about the culprit and how he did it, but I digress from the telling of the fable.

The first animal behavior expert to look at the mess quickly came up with a hypothesis for how the cat got on the table and pushed the plate. It was for some reason called the Feline Eating Theory (FET) even though just about anything involving cats and food could be called that.

Obscure professional publications read by a scant few million specialists in the many relevant topics, worldwide, continue to report, to this day the details of the investigation but since it isn't on TV or on a free website with "cats" in the name, the general public doesn't know of this. Some of these specialists see if other cats like the same spaghetti and show how a cat can push a plate. They publish their findings and calculations with all details for other to recreate any many do. None of these experts can find any cause to investigate anything but the cat for this particular crime even though stories are widely told of other pets pushing food to the floor, true or not and relevant or not. Nobody sees the need to see if cats like oatmeal.

Engineers are able to use the height of the table and the mass and viscosity of the spaghetti to prove statistically and by computer simulation that the diameter and height of the mess and the splash of sauce on the distant wall is well within the range of possibility and the pile is found to conform to the bell curve, which is to be expected. None of them complain that the mess was "cleaned up too quickly". The vast majority of the food was inspected by food scientists before being shipped to China to feed starving children. It was shipped quickly to prevent spoilage. No hamster hair was found. The plate fragments are tested, as are other plates made to the same ASPE [2] specification. Engineers determine that there was nothing unusual about the way the plate broke and when asked, they say the cause was gravity. Lots of people ask, "what is viscosity?" Some people express confusion about the role gravity played in the SI and asked what do bell peppers have to do with it, anyway?

When all the evidence was considered, the first version of the FET is determined to be wrong in one detail, the location of the chair in relationship to the cat footprints. Evidence and analysis shows that the cat could and did jump from other furniture. The label, "FET" somehow stuck to the entire investigation in the public mind. The 100,000,000 google hits for "FET" obscure the sites that accurately describe the updated version of the theory. The fact that the updated sites rarely have "cats" in the name makes finding accurate information easy for anyone not obsessed with cats.

After a couple years of study, the SI Report was published. It supported the hypothesis that the cat did it. It was supported by thousands of pages of detail and was complete with videos of cats pushing plates and eating spaghetti. The evidence and research results the report is based on is available for others to examine, including samples of the sauce which they keep in a special freezer far away from animals. In the investigation, they discovered that the table had a wobbly leg that contributed to the fall, that DNA that matched the cat was found in the mess and tomato DNA was found in hairballs later coughed up by the cat. The SI Report buried this kind of information in appendix ZZ-Alpha-Z and it got little public notice. They succeeded in proving to the satisfaction of everyone with relevant expertise that the cat, unaided, did it. Some cat experts disagree about exactly how the cat pushed the plate but they don't say that it wasn't the cat or claim that the cat had help. There are no offers buy the rights to the SI report as a movie concept.

Physicists remind anyone that will listen that nobody can predict the exact shape and position of the spaghetti strands from the initial conditions, due to the randomness and complexity of way the plate flips as it leaves the table top. They refer to this as the Spaghetti Uncertainty Principle and talk about butterflies and weather but do a poor job of explaining these concepts to the general public. The discussion of the Spaghetti Incident in popular media reveals a shocking lack of general education in animal behavior, food presentation, weather, butterflies and gravity. Physicists are not interviewed on TV although lots of people that are described as "renowned experts" seem to be.

World-renowned, credible waiters from the Famous Waiters School confirmed that the way the spaghetti fell is consistent with their experience and that the sauce splashes on the wall were to be expected and that the lack of splashes would, in fact, be suspicious.

The use of the label, "FET" is avoided by investigators because it is vague and one version is flawed. People that believe the cat didn't do it repeat the claim that the "failure of the FET theory" means that the cat is innocent, or that SI never happened, or something. They ignore the facts as a whole implicate the cat and the name given to the theory has nothing to do with the what the theory says.

CFTers claim that "no cat ever ate spaghetti" even though videos of cats eating spaghetti posted by cat owners are found on YouTube. CFTers respond by posting an immense number of very short videos showing cats not eating spaghetti. The original unedited videos are found and they show cats leaving the scene having stuffed themselves on meat sauce off the floor.

The discussion of the footprints from the first FET has morphed into "couldn't walk in those footprints" and this phrase is used (over and over) by critics to claim that the cat story is impossible. People that say this can't say why and they never saw the footprints, the cat, or the table. They point to lots of other tables, most of which don't have a wobbly leg. People that are familiar with the specifics of SI see nothing strange with the standard description of the event.

Waiters and animal behavior experts, worldwide read the SI report, study the calculations and follow the discussion (which isn't on TV or free websites with "cats" in the name.) Some of them have some difference in the details but all agree that a cat did it and that the hamster didn't. [1] The handful of alleged animal experts that say the cat couldn't do it because it is "too small" turn out to be elephant behavior experts and that they tested cat behavior with marinara sauce. Surveys show that in the general public, people that don't own cats are more likely to believe that the cat couldn't have done it. People familiar with cats believe it is possible.

A group calling themselves "Cats for Truth" (which seems to contain no actual cats, but in fact consists of lots of identically trained parrots that can't fly) has started picketing veterinarians and Italian restaurants demanding answers while wearing T-shirts that provide the answer, saying that members of a group called the Chihuahua World Order did it. CFT is selling books and DVDs about a world-wide Chihuahuaist conspiracy like crazy. CFRers don't understand the contradiction between "asking questions" and the T-shirts they wear. Veterinarians and waiters appear befuddled when they are confronted with in-your-face questions and and video cameras while they are treating animals or serving food. The phrase "Don't inject me, Bro'" enters the popular culture.

With the mantra of "just asking the same question, over and over", CFTers try to assert their claims without waiting to hear the responses of the people they talk to unless the response is somehow insulting to Chihuahuas.

CFT and it's members refuses to acknowledge existence of the pictures of cat footprints stained with spaghetti sauce on the table, the floor, and on the cat's feet and evidence like the DNA record. The CFT claims the photographs couldn't exist because "cats clean themselves too quickly" and that photographs showing sauce on feet are fake.

CFT hasn't tried to show in theory or practice how chihuahuas got past the guard dogs in the yard. CHTers claim that on the day SI happened, the dogs were at the veterinarians and that this is evidence that the veterinarians are part of the conspiracy. The 9 Lives Commission found the postman that delivered that mail. He showed a bill from his doctor that proved that those dogs, in fact, had returned from the Vet on the prior day.

The CFT literature never mentions the cat pictures from the SI report or the fact that the table had a wobbly leg or the DNA. Most CFTers are unaware that these facts exist. In CFT literature, where quotes of the SI report are pasted in, the text about the wobbly table is replaced by ellipses. No CFT member has ever been known to read any footnote from the original source. CFTers are found not to know what an ellipses is or to realize it when they've seen one.

A huge amount of CFT literature is produced by members. They make claims for every animal, real or imaginary, other than cats. No CFT member will tell another CFT member that some of these animals don't exist here, or ever existed, anywhere or don't eat spaghetti.

CFTers insist that the SI be recreated but can't explain what that will prove. Others suspect that the CFTers are just looking for a free lunch.

There are two groups that even the CFT mainstream laughs at. One is the "no-plate"ers and nobody is quite sure what they say. The other group believes that a microwave oven was used to levitate the spaghetti in the air and make most of it evaporate. This is found to be silly because the microwave oven was in the kitchen, not on the dining room table. Who might have operated the oven is not stated.

CFT does have a few retired waiters as members and CFTers claim the expertise gives their claims credibility. One of the waiters was fired from Burgers-4-YoU, for a history of insisting that Cold-cooked Food could be prepared even when the all the world-renowned cooks told him that nobody knew how. When he tried it, himself, the result was never very cold. None of the CFT waiters say anything relevant about cats and gravity. None of the people involved with the SI Report or cleanup have joined the CFT.

CFT has a member that was a dishwasher from the Famous Waiters School. He says that chihuahuas must have done it even though he's never seen a spilled plate of spaghetti or knows any chihuahuas. He blames them for the accident in his last shift in a commercial kitchen when the facial hair of several of the staff was burned off. The dishwasher is acknowledged to have heroically saved the roast beef during the accident.

CFTers welcome all conspiracies. When the fictional "House-Training Papers of Elders of Chihuahua" are mentioned (and they frequently are) nobody speaks up to point out that they are fictional and that they play on stereotypes about how hard some breeds are to housebreak. When a CFT member says that "the Culinary Institute of Armenia has been proven to be responsible for the assassination of President Charles B. Arthur", no other CFTer points out any factual error. People that try to list all the errors in that claim give up when they get a headache. The person making the claim has long-since made another, unrelated claim, anyway. No CFTer seems to have access to an encyclopedia or even use Google unless "Chihuahuas" is part of the search.

CFTers complain that the video of the mess that was seen by millions, over and over on TV's Favorite Cat Tricks is no longer shown and they claim that this proves something. Others claim that the video was fake. Nobody has been able to reconcile the two contradictory positions. Others point out that it isn't shown simply because FCT is no longer in syndication. CFTers ask, "What is "contradiction"?"

One prominent member of CFT claims that sheep did it. He makes this assertion in long presentations in front of any group that doesn't know anything about cats or sheep and will buy him lunch. He cites his expertise as a cook even though he was actually only a waiter and was fired from Burgers-4-YoU. His evidence is that he has sauce said to be from SI, given to him by someone well after the use-by date. He claims that it contains wool fibers and that this proves the cat didn't do it. He won't take notice of the possibility that the room the sample was found in had wool carpets. He also hasn't asked if the location of the SI had wool carpets. The waiter refuses to publish the recipe of his sample so it can be compared to other sauces. CFTers reveal their ignorance of the fact that some carpets are made of wool and reject all assertions of that fact as CWO propaganda.

Critics of the SI report claim that alternative theories been been published and subject to something they call "paw review", always said with great reverence. When specifics of names and credentials and details of the review process are asked for, the critic quickly feigns hearing aid battery failure or changes the topic. For reasons unexplained, these theories are published in only one or two places that most specialists have never heard of. Proponents of these theories seem to appear only where lunch is served.

No other theory has evolved that is constant with the evidence and that doesn't add lots of complications such as where did the dogs come from. CFTers refuse to address these points.

When asked, chihuahua owners point out that lots of evidence that exists for the cat theory even though they don't have the citations at hand. They point out that dogs don't like spaghetti, that there were no chihuahuas in the area, and that no chihuahua DNA has been found and that the cat owner is allergic to dogs. CFT continues to ignore any facts made by the dog owners and accuse them of being part of the CWO. CFTers dismiss quotes from chihuahua owners with the question, "Did you ask all the chihuahuas?" Nobody is sure what that has to do with the evidence that shows the cat could and did do it.

The owner of the cat and the hamster also has a parrot. The parrot has been heard saying "the hamster did it". CFTers cite the parrot to claim the cat is innocent, The parrot also says "I did it" even though he has never been let out of his cage and the cage is in another room. The parrot has never made it clear what "it" is.

It hasn't occurred to any of the CFTers to ask the owner if the parrot said anything before the SI incident or what the parrot means by "it". The SI Report did and finds out that the owner trained the parrot to say these things as a joke, many years earlier. The parrot is found to have a poor understanding of pronouns. CFTers think, "what's a pronoun?" but say nothing.

The pet owner was on the phone to a friend when SI happened. When the friend was asked under oath by the chairman of the 9 Lives Commission about the phone call, the friend said "...I didn't hear a plate crash...". CFTers use this as proof that SI never happened, or that paper plates were used, or something. The SI Report interviewed the friend and found he was hearing impaired and that the phone call was via a "braille relay service". [3] CFTers say that there is no such thing as a braille relay service because they've never heard of it, or it didn't exist then or something and therefor SI couldn't have happened. Attempts to explain to CFTers how the relay service works have been futile.

The existence of the parrot is not mentioned in the SI report for reasons that should be obvious. CFTers use this as proof of something that they can't quite explain to non-CFTers about the SI report being like, totally bogus, man.

The parrot's testimony is fully documented in the report from the 9 Lives Commission.

---------

1. It didn't occur to anyone to see if the hamster would eat spaghetti sauce since even if it did, it wouldn't explain the plate on the floor, how it got on the table, the footprints or the DNA, or many other facts that implicate the cat. CFT claims that someone should do such a test but CFT hasn't bothered to do it, themselves. There is a segment of CFT that claims, with no evidence, that a hamster could push a plate of spaghetti. Questions as to why a hamster would want to go unanswered.
2. American Society of Pottery Engineers, the relevant standards setting body for dinnerware and unrelated to Underwater Labs, which only sets standards for things that can catch fire. UW is very touchy about this and will defend itself in court if necessary.
3. http://www.nyrelay.com/, for example.

Copyright Al Dykes 2008

[JohnG]

Lacking omnipresence, I'm rather sort on data to work with.

Lacking omnipresence, I'm rather short on the necessary data to start from.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You may be thinking of omniscience or possibly even omnipotence. Omnipresence seems the least apt of these three words considering the context of your posts.

Just a tip from your friendly neighborhood Pedantic Bore.

[alienentity]

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3619/startlight.jpg

Here is a video for reference sake (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&ei=k0

KsSpX2Mab0qgKTxZWtAw&q#), if someone knows of a better one, please share it and I will add it to this post.

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions below:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?


http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Crap! the links to 'What Did and Did not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York ' are dead. Gravy's site has exceeded bandwidth.

Cool. You can view it as an html doc off Gravy's site. Hehe.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:wiOk0k85ALEJ:wtc7lies.googlepages.c om/Bazant_WTC_Collapse_What_Did__Did_No.pdf+civil.nor thwestern.edu+bazant&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk
Read these. Perhaps they will answer some of your questions.

[kylebisme]

If the brick tipping over caused the dry soil to take on the consistency of the wet soil, then yes, it would.
Expanding mosture would cause the dry soil to take on the consistancy of the wet.

That's what would have to happen for your analogy to be consistent with what happened to the tower, since the very process of the tower starting to tip over destroyed what was causing it to tip over.
The analogy was simply to dispute the claim that the force exerted by gravity a tittled block of mass acts evenly on the mass below it.


The fulcrum point, created by uneven damage to the tower, transfered angular momentum to the part of the tower above the damage. As the top of the tower tilted it deformed the fulcrum point until it was destroyed, and once the fulcrum point was destroyed the tilting portion of the tower stopped gaining angular momentum, and it started falling straight down. While the top part of the tower still had some angular momentum (since angular momentum is conserved), that angular momentum wasn't enough to increase its tilt much more before gravity caused it to smash down into the rest of the tower beneath it.
The point of my previous questions was simply that the force in question is gravity, and eliminating it would be quite a trick. Of course you are correct in saying once the load of the upper portion of the building focused on the fulcrum is likely to give way, but note that it would be replaced by the next beams opposite the damage until progressing to the corner, resulting in a tilt as observed in the picture and video I presented in the OP. however, the question remains of how the destruction below is horizontal to the ground rather than of a comparable angle to that the mass above.

OK, there is some rotation of the upper mass...so what? It's still falling straight down; the pivot point of the rotation is near the area of the perimeter columns where there was observed buckling. If the pivot point was near the center mass, then I would expect the trajectory to be different, somewhat angular. But it wasn't, so the notion that the upper mass should have fallen somewhat sideways is incorrect. But it wasn't, so the notion that the upper mass should have fallen somewhat sideways is incorrect.
According to NCSTAR1-6D figure 4-120, the pivot point did start near the center, though I've yet to find how they derived the location range they presented.


But it wasn't, so the notion that the upper mass should have fallen somewhat sideways is incorrect.
It did topple very sideways, you can see it pushing the smoke out as it does here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9X3TYVWf5A#t=1m2s).

Or are you saying that the upper mass did continue falling sideways? If so, show me your evidence(which everyone seems to have missed until now and would nullify the truth movements contention that both buildings fell in their own footprints).
The problem is that the destruction did continue horizontally down to the building's footprint, even though the upper section of mass continued to toppling sideways as it fell.

Or is this a "path of least resistance" type of argument? Please clarify what exactly you think is happening here.
Path of least resistance, distribution weight, and ever other relevant principle of physics. I'm not interested in proposing theories on what happen here though, just discussing what observably did.

[Matthew Cline]

Of course you are correct in saying once the load of the upper portion of the building focused on the fulcrum is likely to give way, but note that it would be replaced by the next beams opposite the damage until progressing to the corner,

Are you saying that, once the original fulcrum point was destroyed, that upon impacting each of the lower floors that a temporary fulcrum point would be created, imparting more angular momentum as each lower floor was hit?

resulting in a tilt as observed in the picture and video I presented in the OP.

Do you mean to say the the angular momentum which was imparted upon the upper part of the tower before the fulcrum pointed collapsed is insufficient to account for how far it was tilted, so it must have received additional angular momentum afterwards?

however, the question remains of how the destruction below is horizontal to the ground rather than of a comparable angle to that the mass above.

While the upper part of the tower will continue to rotate after the fulcrum point is destroyed (due to conservation of angular momentum), that rotation will be around it's center of gravity, and the center of gravity isn't going to receive any more horizontal acceleration after the fulcrum point is destroyed. It's lateral velocity at the moment the fulcrum was destroyed wasn't very large and was thus quickly overtaken by its downwards acceleration, leading to a extremely steep parabolic curve which would allow for it to crush down on the floors immediately below. Once enough of the lower floors had been crushed their combined downwards momentum would have been enough to continue collapse, even if the rotating upper portion of the tower completely fell off to the side.

[jhunter1163]

We really need an icon on the profiles for male and female, or maybe I need to actually look at people's profile.

My apologies to ARUS then.

Houkolele, or whatever the mods name is, I cannot remember whom, I thought he was a girl for some reason. Don't ask me why. I just did.

Hokulele IS a woman, so you got that one right.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled truther flogging.

[kylebisme]

If someone pushed a bowl of spaghetti off the table and onto the floor, you'd find out why and how it went over the edge but how the stuff spread out on the way down and on the floor is pointless and can only be simulated statistically which is irrelevant for any specific instance, especially the mess on the floor.
Obviously one can't derive how the pieces landed where they did, but then I never suggested otherwise. My comment was in the lack of analysis of the structural failure beyond the section where the collapse initiated.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You may be thinking of omniscience or possibly even omnipotence. Omnipresence seems the least apt of these three words considering the context of your posts.

Just a tip from your friendly neighborhood Pedantic Bore.
I appreciate the attempt to help, but i don't follow your argument. Omnipresence is all that is required to access all the data in existence, omniscience would further allow complete understanding of it, and omnipotence would allow an unchallengeable ability to manipulate it.

[GlennB]

Unless the axis it tilted on was it's corner, it would be impossible for one side not to come up as the other went down, and at least according to the NCSTAR1-6D figure 4-120, the axis it titled on was more towards the center.


My bolding.

This would require a fulcrum sufficiently strong to support the entire weight of the upper section as it tilted (i.e. a see-saw arrangement). There was no such fulcrum.
It would also require the upper section to be sufficiently rigid as to be able to retain a stable geometry as it tilted. It wasn't.
These are my educated guesses. I'm not an engineer.

[Hokulele]

Hokulele IS a woman, so you got that one right.


But I am not a mod (thank goodness), so it's only half a point.

[kylebisme]

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Crap! the links to 'What Did and Did not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York ' are dead. Gravy's site has exceeded bandwidth.

Cool. You can view it as an html doc off Gravy's site. Hehe.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:wiOk0k85ALEJ:wtc7lies.googlepages.c om/Bazant_WTC_Collapse_What_Did__Did_No.pdf+civil.nor thwestern.edu+bazant&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk
Read these. Perhaps they will answer some of your questions.
I'll check them out, but if you could be so kind as to quote what you believe addresses the topic at hand, I'd be much obliged.

Are you saying that, once the original fulcrum point was destroyed, that upon impacting each of the lower floors that a temporary fulcrum point would be created, imparting more angular momentum as each lower floor was hit?
No, I mean parallel to the original fulcrum point the other supporting beams momentarily act as fulcrums themselves until progressing to the outside corner.

Do you mean to say the the angular momentum which was imparted upon the upper part of the tower before the fulcrum pointed collapsed is insufficient to account for how far it was tilted, so it must have received additional angular momentum afterwards?
Rather, the progression of fulcrums towards the corner is consistent with the continuing the angular momentum of observed results.

While the upper part of the tower will continue to rotate after the fulcrum point is destroyed (due to conservation of angular momentum), that rotation will be around it's center of gravity, and the center of gravity isn't going to receive any more horizontal acceleration after the fulcrum point is destroyed. It's lateral velocity at the moment the fulcrum was destroyed wasn't very large and was thus quickly overtaken by its downwards acceleration, leading to a extremely steep parabolic curve which would allow for it to crush down on the floors immediately below. Once enough of the lower floors had been crushed their combined downwards momentum would have been enough to continue collapse, even if the rotating upper portion of the tower completely fell off to the side.
But right from the start, as seen in the picture in the OP, the upper section of mass tilted well over while the lower section is crumbling away horizontally to the ground. So how do we get from there to the point were enough floors are crushed?

[alienentity]

I did.
'Read these. Perhaps they will answer some of your questions. '

Your questions were the topic at hand, weren't they? I figure, the best persons to confer with regarding engineering questions are engineers, particularly if they've studied the collapses. Hence the references for your perusal.

btw Hokulele, nice change of scenery.

[beachnut]

I'm simply pointing out an apparent inconsistency between the observed collapse and the commonly accepted explanation for that collapse.

Please feel free to present a whatever you might consider a better one. No you are exposing your vast ignorance on 911 and science. Impacts and fires precipitated a gravity collapse. Your failed inconsistency claim is based on your own opinion which is lacking in evidence and science. You need to use some engineering instead of what you think it should be based on nothing but your feelings, hearsay, and lies. If you actually think there is a problem why have you ignored engineers here, and why are you incapable of contacting engineers, and why are you not in engineering school. At least you have company from a few fringe nut case conspiracy theorists engineers and scientist; a small list. You will find support for you from world engineers is about 0.00087 percent. A fringe few nut bars.

The brick will lean over as it sinks into the wetter corner more than the dryer one, assuming you use a heavy enough brick and loose enough dirt. Brick and mud engineering axiom, reminds me of our expert pizza box delusional engineer with 2 mile drops which can't destroy the lower section of the WTC on 911 issues. When will you roll out the lemons? I love truther attempts at modeling the WTC collapse with moronic models.

What does the chief structural engineer think about the collapse, the gravity collapse? Did you ask the person who built the WTC?
Robertson , “the collapse mechanism of the trade center, is as we anticipated it would be, when we first designed it” Oops, there are zero inconsistencies except in your conspiracy minded delusions. This is not an "appeal to authority", it is a fact he built and structurally designed the WTC and is the number one authority (unless you can prove he is not he trumps all your experts you can dig up from the pit of ignorance know as 911 truth); the rest of the world would be hearsay compared to Robertson. But don't take my word go talk to some independent engineers.


the upper section of mass tilted well over while the lower section is crumbling away horizontally to the ground Why not tell us the exact tilt? Well over is not a great engineering term, and crumbling horizontally to the ground? At least you make no sense. I love the crumbling horizontally; have not seen that one until you showed up. something new

[Hokulele]

No, I mean parallel to the original fulcrum point the other supporting beams momentarily act as fulcrums themselves until progressing to the outside corner.

Rather, the progression of fulcrums towards the corner is consistent with the continuing the angular momentum of observed results.


What portion of the structure do you think acted as the initial fulcrum?

btw Hokulele, nice change of scenery.


Thank you. That is my winter avatar, now that the north swells are starting to come in.

[Darat]

Some posts moved to AAH and as ever - attack the argument not the arguer.

[kylebisme]

My bolding.

This would require a fulcrum sufficiently strong to support the entire weight of the upper section as it tilted (i.e. a see-saw arrangement). There was no such fulcrum.
It would also require the upper section to be sufficiently rigid as to be able to retain a stable geometry as it tilted. It wasn't.
These are my educated guesses. I'm not an engineer.
Well it couldn't have lasted long anyway, but again NIST claims the fulcrum was towards the middle in the diagram I mentioned previously, NCSTAR1-6D figure 4-120. You can find it here (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6D.pdf)

I did.
'Read these. Perhaps they will answer some of your questions. '

Your questions were the topic at hand, weren't they? I figure, the best persons to confer with regarding engineering questions are engineers, particularly if they've studied the collapses. Hence the references for your perusal.

Am I to take it you are not even sure if those links you provide discuss the discrepancy between the angle of the upper section of mass and the destruction below it?

[beachnut]

Go straight to the source.

1) "Tilt of approximately 3 to 4 degrees to the south and 7 to 8 degrees to the east occurred before bulding section fell." NIST NCSTAR1-6D, Table E-1.

2) A graphical representation of the stress at the moment of collapse initiation (predicted) is given in NCSTAR1-6D, figures 4-120.

3) Not directly, no. The columns above can only transmit a force through them equal to their individual buckling strength, which does not account for the magnitude or complexity of impacts at the interface. Force and destruction are also not directly related quantities in any event.
What was wrong with this post answering the OP? When does the thermite card come out?

If this is not good enough then the OP author is not looking for rational answers.

[kylebisme]

What portion of the structure do you think acted as the initial fulcrum?

My guess is a collection of beams in the region highlighted in NCSTAR1-6D, though I'm still curious to know if NIST simply guessed too, as I've yet to find any mention of how they derived their claim.

What was wrong with this post answering the OP?
See my response (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5100684&postcount=16).

[Hokulele]

My guess is a collection of beams in the region highlighted in NCSTAR1-6D, though I'm still curious to know if NIST simply guessed too, as I've yet to find any mention of how they derived their claim.


Which beams? To what were they attached?

The reason why I am asking you these questions is to see if you understand the figure (4-120 from NCSTAR 1-6D) you are citing as support for your idea. Even more importantly, do you understand figures 4-118 and 4-119?

[beachnut]

My guess is a collection of beams in the region highlighted in NCSTAR1-6D, though I'm still curious to know if NIST simply guessed too, as I've yet to find any mention of how they derived their claim.


See my response (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5100684&postcount=16). It was not a response, it was proof you failed to read the entire NIST report.
That was not a response it was more dumb questions. You failed to read NIST, all of NIST so you are forced to ask more questions due to your own lack of knowledge. When you finish all of NIST you should try again.

[bill smith]

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3619/startlight.jpg

Here is a video for reference sake (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&ei=k0

KsSpX2Mab0qgKTxZWtAw&q#), if someone knows of a better one, please share it and I will add it to this post.

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions below:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?
Here's a video that gives an interesting perspective. I have a longer clip if you need it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778#

[Macgyver1968]

I should not have even responded in this thread. It's so incredibly dumb. The mods should definitely remove the thread for just for being excessively stupid.

Dude...if stupidity was grounds for deletion of threads...this subforum would be empty. :)

[funk de fino]

Obviously one can't derive how the pieces landed where they did, but then I never suggested otherwise. My comment was in the lack of analysis of the structural failure beyond the section where the collapse initiated.

I suggest you read the NIST Dec FAQ's. They explain the collapse propogation.

Think of a seesaw built on a very high fulcrum point with one very fat man and one not so fat man. It will tip towards the very fatman. Unfortunately the weight of the two fatmen is too much for the fulcrm to support. It fails.

What will happen to the fatmen? Will they fall straight down?

[Sherman Bay]

kylebisme, what's your point? What are you trying to prove? That the tower didn't collapse? Went up? Sideways? I'm simply pointing out an apparent inconsistency between the observed collapse and the commonly accepted explanation for that collapse.The commonly accepted explanation for that collapse is the columns and spans were weakened and the weight of the top floors caused them to break, while gravity did the rest.

The observed action shows the top floors falling onto the bottom ones. What inconsistency?

Parts of the building were weaker than others, so parts fell a little sooner or at angles. Parts fell on other parts and changed the angles. Weakened parts became weaker. Gravity pulled them all down. Absolutely consistent with what we would expect.

Now if you are suggesting that tests on models or computer modeling provides a slightly different outcome, remember that there are many, many factors here and no model, computer or otherwise, can perfectly account for them all. This is a chaotic system -- study that sometime. So if the building fell at 10 degrees tilt and your model says it should have been 15, you are just ignorant about how models work.

[WildCat]

Oh I get it - another truther who thinks the top portion should have toppled over the side thanks to some mystery horizontal force.

Why do these people have a hard time with the concept of GRAVITY?
Because gravity isn't nearly as interesting as space beams, keebler elves, gigantic invisible rockets forcing it back, sooper-nano-therm*te which does anything you want it to, etc etc.

[WildCat]

If you took a bucket of loose dirt, set a brick on it, and wet down one corner, would you expect the brick to sink straight down?
Try this experiment kyle: Stand a pencil on your palm, and let it start to tilt. Then quickly move your palm downward and away to simulate the destruction of the fulcrum which can't possible hold the load of the top portion of the tower. Notice how the pencil at that point falls straight down?

It can't goe sideways because there is no force making it go sideways. Gravity pulls it straight down, incidentally the same problem you have trying to cut a column with therm*te.

[leftysergeant]

What force are you suggesting pushed the top portion of the tower to the side, and what force are you suggesting eliminated it?

It actually appears to me the the top was not forced to the side, but, rather, that the bottom was pulled toward the opposite side.

In this respect, the tower behaved more like a tree that did not fall quite as the lumberjack expected.

I always get the impression, when looking at the news rooftop camera footage that Peter Jennings was watching, that the bottom moves toward the camera.

Now go back up to your picture and look at the corner of the structure on both sides of the failure point, and consider the angle of the top corner. I cannot see the point of contact between the upper and lower blocks because there is dust in the way by this point. It is possible that it has come to over-hang the edge by at least a few feet at this point. My guess would be that the core columns had folded over somewhat (Think of the "horseshoe beam" in the recovered wreckage) in the direction that would correspond with the right-hand side of the tower in your picture, thus accelerating the bottom of the block, possibly moving it off of the core. The surviving perimeter columns held the top from tipping off for a matter of perhaps tenths of a second. By the time they ceased to hold the upper block in place, the center of gravity would have shifted to the right, in terms of the picture, thus preventing an immediate topple-over. The upper block is now accelerating both downward and , very slightly, to the right. It continues for some time to do so because it is losing floor slabs, thus weight, more slowly on that interface than on the other side.

It would also, of course, be sliding off the tops of the lower core columns, agaain, simulating to some extent a badly-felled tree. This shifts the center of gravity to the right, preventing a topple-over as a unit. Think of the surviving lowercore columns acting like a spindle to guide the core columns in the upper block.

All of this complex process continue to function only for a short while, but that time span is enough to somewhat even-out the collapse. It still collapses in a less perfect symetry than does the north tower when it finally fails.

I hope that this makes as much sense as I think it does.:p

Of course the top of the tower wouldn't just slide off unless it broke free, but the angle of the upper portion of the mass has direct relationship to the distribution of force on the lower section regardless.

It was trying to slide off in the oposite direction of the tilt.

[WildCat]

Path of least resistance, distribution weight, and ever other relevant principle of physics. I'm not interested in proposing theories on what happen here though, just discussing what observably did.
Path of least resistance is straight down. If you don't believe me then drop a boling ball directly over your mama's glass coffee table. If you believe in your definition the bowling ball will stop in mid-air, float over to the side, and then drop harmlessly on the floor. Do you think this will happen?

[WildCat]

Obviously one can't derive how the pieces landed where they did, but then I never suggested otherwise.
Yes, you did. That's what "model the collapse" entails.

[Grizzly Bear]

Unless the axis it tilted on was it's corner, it would be impossible for one side not to come up as the other went down, and at least according to the NCSTAR1-6D figure 4-120, the axis it titled on was more towards the center.

Please see my brick in mud example above.

If you've taken architecture courses far enough you should understand why this analogy is insufficient to match with the towers. We have another poster here, Heiwa, who does this worse. I'm asking that you not follow his example.

No, I mean parallel to the original fulcrum point the other supporting beams momentarily act as fulcrums themselves until progressing to the outside corner.

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5246/studyg.jpg

The columns you're referring to were already buckling by the time this tilt initiated...

[Sabrina]

Isn't anyone else wondering why kyle here is using the analogy of a bucket of DIRT to simulate the "approximately 95% hollow and filled with air" Twin Towers?

I know I sure am. Why you would use a bucket of dirt to simulate a collapse of a mostly hollow tower makes absolutely NO sense to me, and I have absolutely NO background in physics, engineering, OR architecture.

So I'm sorry kyle, but whatever your argument is (I still can't figure out what you're arguing, honestly), it fails right there for me. The Twin Towers were completely unique structures; no other building at the time or since was built the way they were. Trying to find a fitting analogy for modeling the collapse of the South Tower is therefore, by definition, impossible. The only way you could possibly hope to model the collapse is by either completely recreating the building and getting the exact same set of circumstances to happen, or possibly by building a scale model (probably 1/4 size, so still a pretty big building) of the building and then getting the appropriately calculated force to destroy one corner to watch what happens. The bucket of dirt thing? Not working for you. At all. Find a better analogy, or support your assertions (whatever the heck they are) with appropriate calculations that can be verified by the knowledgable folks here.

[WildCat]

Isn't anyone else wondering why kyle here is using the analogy of a bucket of DIRT to simulate the "approximately 95% hollow and filled with air" Twin Towers?

I know I sure am. Why you would use a bucket of dirt to simulate a collapse of a mostly hollow tower makes absolutely NO sense to me, and I have absolutely NO background in physics, engineering, OR architecture.
You're right. It should be a bucket of FAIL. :p

[calebprime]

when things are that big they behave much differently than something the size of a milk carton
its called scale



...
How did you derived this conclusion?

...

Here's the point of fail.

What, are you actually questioning this?!

Start with the square-cube law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law), or better, read On Being the Right Size (http://irl.cs.ucla.edu/papers/right-size.html).







. ...it fails right there for me. ...

[dafydd]

The Education system in Tampa must suck.

Maybe

[JohnG]

Isn't anyone else wondering why kyle here is using the analogy of a bucket of DIRT to simulate the "approximately 95% hollow and filled with air" Twin Towers?

I know I sure am. Why you would use a bucket of dirt to simulate a collapse of a mostly hollow tower makes absolutely NO sense to me, and I have absolutely NO background in physics, engineering, OR architecture.

So I'm sorry kyle, but whatever your argument is (I still can't figure out what you're arguing, honestly), it fails right there for me. The Twin Towers were completely unique structures; no other building at the time or since was built the way they were. Trying to find a fitting analogy for modeling the collapse of the South Tower is therefore, by definition, impossible. The only way you could possibly hope to model the collapse is by either completely recreating the building and getting the exact same set of circumstances to happen, or possibly by building a scale model (probably 1/4 size, so still a pretty big building) of the building and then getting the appropriately calculated force to destroy one corner to watch what happens. The bucket of dirt thing? Not working for you. At all. Find a better analogy, or support your assertions (whatever the heck they are) with appropriate calculations that can be verified by the knowledgable folks here.


Dirt? Dumb idea.

[jhunter1163]

Dirt? Dumb idea.

Beachnut? Is that you?

[Newtons Bit]

Kylebisme,

You're making a critical error. The towers are not a homogenous solid elements. A force applied at one corner of the building will not apply a large amount of moment to the upper block for two reasons:

1) the individual elements in the lower block will fail and become disconnected from the lower block.

2) the individual elements in the upper block will fail and become disconnected from the upper block.

You can't treat the problem as a solid block (which is what you're doing). It must be analyzed with discrete elements that have finite amounts of strength.

[HeyLeroy]

wtf analogy is this? this is plain stupid. ARE YOU freaking kidding? :jaw-dropp

BTW, You gave me my first stundie nomination

Yay!

Try this experiment kyle: Stand a pencil on your palm, and let it start to tilt. Then quickly move your palm downward and away to simulate the destruction of the fulcrum which can't possible hold the load of the top portion of the tower. Notice how the pencil at that point falls straight down?

It can't goe sideways because there is no force making it go sideways. Gravity pulls it straight down, incidentally the same problem you have trying to cut a column with therm*te.

Win!

Isn't anyone else wondering why kyle here is using the analogy of a bucket of DIRT to simulate the "approximately 95% hollow and filled with air" Twin Towers?

I know I sure am. Why you would use a bucket of dirt to simulate a collapse of a mostly hollow tower makes absolutely NO sense to me, and I have absolutely NO background in physics, engineering, OR architecture.

Because making mud pies (http://www.readersdigest.ca/homegarden/cms/xcms/how-to-make-a-mud-pie_210_a.html) is so much fun!

[R.Mackey]

Typical Truther thread.

Truther asks leading, semi-incoherent question.

I try to figure out what is being asked and provide answers.

Argument continues, unabated. I have no idea what is being asked now, or where it's going. If the question that's really behind this is "why didn't the upper block topple off," it's because it can't. The maximum rotation seen at any point of collapse was about 26 degrees, and most of this happened as a free body, rotating around its center of gravity. The dimensions of the upper block are such that it would have taken almost 40 degrees of rotation before becoming a free body to move its center of gravity outside the footprint. In reality, it only rotated about ten degrees before coming loose. After it's loose, it cannot experience a "fulcrum"-like behavior, because there is no fulcrum. At that point, there is actually a restoring force exerted by the lower structure, not a continued torque towards rotating and toppling off.

Draw a free-body diagram if you don't believe me.


I covered this in great depth in my whitepaper (http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf), pp. 104-105 and 250-255. It's been out in the current draft for sixteen months or so.

The problem with the Truth Movement, as always, is that when it "asks questions and demands answers," the questions it asks are leading questions, and it is not intelligent enough to comprehend the answers.

[psikeyhackr]

if someone knows of a better one, please share it and I will add it to this post.

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions below:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?
.
OMG, intelligent questions. I feel faint. :D

This presents the problem of relating what should have happened to what did happen.

I think Richard Gage said the top tilted at 22 degrees at his show I attended in 2008. I recently saw some site that said 23 degrees. It certainly looks like more than 15 to me.

As to what should have happened. More weight should have been put on one side of the building and greatly overloaded that side crushing it more quickly which would then have caused the top to tilt more until the center of gravity was beyond the edge of the building. It then should have fallen down the side.

The fact that what did happen was so different from what should have happened demonstrates that other forces were involved in removing the resistance of the lower portion of the building.

Truther asks leading, semi-incoherent question.
.
ROFL

How far did it have to tilt for the center of mass to no longe be above THE CORE? What would happen then? Who needs 40 degrees?

psik

[twinstead]

.
OMG, intelligent questions. I feel faint. :D

Yea. Sure. This coming from YOU. Pardon me if I desire a second opinion.

[Hokulele]

As to what should have happened. More weight should have been put on one side of the building and greatly overloaded that side crushing it more quickly which would then have caused the top to tilt more until the center of gravity was beyond the edge of the building. It then should have fallen down the side.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2243709&postcount=1243

[tuc0]

As to what should have happened. More weight should have been put on one side of the building and greatly overloaded that side crushing it more quickly which would then have caused the top to tilt more until the center of gravity was beyond the edge of the building. It then should have fallen down the side.

psik
Only in some Bizarro Universe where our beloved laws of physics don't apply. :newlol

[DGM]

Only in some Bizarro Universe where our beloved laws of physics don't apply. :newlol
The part he won't get is this "more weight" that he's talking about is the center of gravity that he says should move because of the weight. Anyone else (everyone) see this confusion?:o

[R.Mackey]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2243709&postcount=1243

Quoting people I have on Ignore? Grr!

Anyway, the point is, once the upper section is detached, it no longer rotates around its base. It then rotates around its center of mass. That rotation can be any angle you want, it won't change the fact that it's coming straight down.

Once it breaks loose, the only alternative is to move the upper portion aside. It cannot survive this much force, nor is there anything around strong enough to provide such a force. As I computed in my whitepaper, the force required is roughly twice that of the Space Shuttle at liftoff.

That's all there is to it. Bleating appeals to "common sense" are useless in overturning the basic laws of mechanics.

[psikeyhackr]

Only in some Bizarro Universe where our beloved laws of physics don't apply. :newlol
.
LOL

Oh, so the tilted upper portion couldn't put more pressure on one side.

Bizarro Physics indeed. :D

psik

[alienentity]

'It then should have fallen down the side.' According to what physics principle?

And why didn't it fall down the side, as you suggest? nanothermite rockets propping it up on one side? I'm morbidly curious to know what on earth you're thinking.

[DGM]

.
LOL

Oh, so the tilted upper portion couldn't put more pressure on one side.

Bizarro Physics indeed. :D

psik
Once it was free? No!!!!!!!!!

[tuc0]

.
LOL

Oh, so the tilted upper portion couldn't put more pressure on one side.

Bizarro Physics indeed. :D

psik
I rest my case.

[psikeyhackr]

The part he won't get is this "more weight" that he's talking about is the center of gravity that he says should move because of the weight. Anyone else (everyone) see this confusion?:o
.
This is confusion?

What does titling a mass do to the distribution of its weight on its support?

That is so difficult to understand. :D :D

psik

[DGM]

.
This is confusion?

What does titling a mass do to the distribution of its weight on its support?

That is so difficult to understand. :D :D

psik
What support? We're talking about a free mass (the upper block).

[UNLoVedRebel]

.
This is confusion?

What does titling a mass do to the distribution of its weight on its support?

That is so difficult to understand. :D :D

psik

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4103932#post4103932

[Stellafane]

Isn't anyone else wondering why kyle here is using the analogy of a bucket of DIRT to simulate the "approximately 95% hollow and filled with air" Twin Towers?

My guess is that it's because this major epiphany occured in a sandbox.

[jaydeehess]

For ease of responding, I'll number the questions below:

1) What is the orientation of the upper portion mass?

Its tilted

2) How does this orientation relate to the force exerted on the lower portion of mass?

It barely has any relevence at all. The center of mass of that upper section is still above the lower section which means that it will fall(downwards) on top of the lower section

3) Is that distribution of force reflected in the destruction of the lower portion of mass?

It actually is although by the time the entire structure has collapsed it had very little effect.

the structure collapsed because enough force was impinged upon the florrspace to fail the floor pans and their trusses thus sending even mor mass down on the next lower floor space. The core simply could not have stood on its own without the lateral support of the perimeter columns via the floor trusses and thus the core too failed. After about half way down though the amount of falling debris and the associated mass loading plus the dynamic loading would have falied the core simply by pummeling it..

Now, having read only the first post I will assume that others have said much the same and that was follwoed by a misuse and misunderstanding of the physics involved by the originator of the thread.

[Gaspode]

Discussion on David Chandler's analysis split to new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153750).

[jaydeehess]

.
LOL

Oh, so the tilted upper portion couldn't put more pressure on one side.

Bizarro Physics indeed. :D

psik



Once the mass is falling it falls straight down. It may rotate but the mass is still falling straight down and all the is required to fail a floor is to impact the floor pan with enough mass and dynamic loading to fail trusses that were designed to accomodate the forces expected for ONE STATIC FLOORSPACE.

In a typical post and beam construction this might have been arrested on the side with slightly less originally falling mass. That is because the columns are spaced apart. In the case of these long span buildings the floors were absolutly required to laterally support the core columns and loads were distributed to perimeter and core via very long trusses. Fail several trusses and one compromises the stability of the structure more dramatically than in a typical post and beam structure (such as WTC 5).

[jaydeehess]

.
This is confusion?

What does titling a mass do to the distribution of its weight on its support?

That is so difficult to understand. :D :D

psik

When the initial collapse began the upper section no longer had a support to pivot on and thus it would have then been rotating about its center of mass to conserve angular momentum. The center of mass was then moving straight downward from where it was at the moment the upper section lost its pivot support.

As initial collapse began the columns on one side were in more compression than they could withstand and buckled. Columns on the other side would have been undergoing a torsion and tension that was they were never designed for and would have bent and snapped or simply folded over as the upper section fell. As all columns were failed and the upper section of those columns no longer lined up at all with their counterparts on the lower section, all mass and dynamic loads would have impinged upon the floor spaces of both the long span areas and the core.

Any rotation the upper section did have was very slow and would have been lost to the upper block as a whole when it came apart as it fell onto the lower portion of the building.

[jaydeehess]

now, having read only the first post i will assume that others have said much the same and that was follwoed by a misuse and misunderstanding of the physics involved by the originator of the thread.

bingo!

[psikeyhackr]

Any rotation the upper section did have was very slow and would have been lost to the upper block as a whole when it came apart as it fell onto the lower portion of the building.
.
You call this VERY SLOW?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

This was 52 minutes after the oscillation from the plane impact had ceased and the plane deflected the building less than 16 inches. So gravity and fire were supposedly the only available influences. So what caused the rotation?

psik

[UNLoVedRebel]

psik can't be a sheep; he's a Born Again Heisenberg Heretic. That means he has to ask the same question 463 times, even after 3 suspensions and one vicious cyber tongue-lashing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4103932#post4103932).

[kylebisme]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2243709&postcount=1243
This actually exemplifies my point well, the first illustration that is. With the red block at the angle it is, would you expect the destruction of the blue block below to be horizontal, or match the angle of the red block?

[kylebisme]

.
You call this VERY SLOW?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

This was 52 minutes after the oscillation from the plane impact had ceased and the plane deflected the building less than 16 inches. So gravity and fire were supposedly the only available influences. So what caused the rotation?

psik
Uneven support, caused by the weakening of the structure on the side were the plane hit. There is nothing inherently dubious about that. The problem is the lack of the rotation of the block being reflected in the destruction bellow it.

However, that video does show an curious cloud of dust and debris rising from the upper section of the building after it tumbles off to the side, but before it has a chance to hit the ground.

[~enigma~]

This actually exemplifies my point well, the first illustration that is. With the red block at the angle it is, would you expect the destruction of the blue block below to be horizontal, or match the angle of the red block?
What part of "the force is straight down as physics dictates" is confusing you?

[jaydeehess]

.
You call this VERY SLOW?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

This was 52 minutes after the oscillation from the plane impact had ceased and the plane deflected the building less than 16 inches. So gravity and fire were supposedly the only available influences. So what caused the rotation?

psik

THAT is the best point you find in my post to address?

Yes it would be slow. All things being relative. However no matter what its rotation, the greatest percentage of mass of the upper section still remains above, and therefore falling onto, the lower portion of the structure where it will be impacting the floor of the levels below initial collapse.

[jaydeehess]

Uneven support, caused by the weakening of the structure on the side were the plane hit. There is nothing inherently dubious about that.

Yes.

The problem is the lack of the rotation of the block being reflected in the destruction bellow it.

The rotation of the upper block(approx 15% of the entire building) will have little effect on the distribution of the remaining 85% of the structure. There is no reason for it to do so. The only effect it would have is that the portion of that upper 15% of the structure, which was not still over the lower structure, would likely to come to rest to that side of the tower.

However, that video does show an curious cloud of dust and debris rising from the upper section of the building after it tumbles off to the side, but before it has a chance to hit the ground.

You mean the expellling of all the smoke within the fire floors as their floors become closer to their ceilings and the thousand square feet of drywall gets crushed in a second or two.? That cloud of 'dust'?

[jaydeehess]

What part of "the force is straight down as physics dictates" is confusing you?

Because Wile E. Coyote physics was in play in Sept 2001?

[CompusMentus]

Lets see, the top is leaning toward the area that the plane impacted with, meaning that the support columns there have lost its total strength and/or are missing.




We are writing about the South Tower?

While looking at the OP video. I found this clip

2741743293567850827

I think it's from a BBC production ("Why The Towers Fell").
During the last few minutes, it discusses the collapse mechanism of the South Tower. It is surmised there that the initial impact was ruled out as the direct cause of collapse and that the building fell (away from the jet impact zone) toward the fire in the NE corner.

Am I confusing something?

Compus

Edited to add. I can't see the clip working full link below,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&ei=k0%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3EKsSpX2Mab0qgKTxZWtAw&q#docid=2741743293567850827

[psikeyhackr]

The rotation of the upper block(approx 15% of the entire building) will have little effect on the distribution of the remaining 85% of the structure. There is no reason for it to do so. The only effect it would have is that the portion of that upper 15% of the structure, which was not still over the lower structure, would likely to come to rest to that side of the tower.
.
Jesus H. Christ!

The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor. So it was more like 29 stories of 110.

29/110 = 26%
28/110 = 25%

15% would be only 16.5 stories. It was a lot more than that for the south tower.

It was about 13% for the north tower but it did not rotate.

psik

[Justin39640]

.
Jesus H. Christ!

The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor. So it was more like 29 stories of 110.

29/110 = 26%
28/110 = 25%

15% would be only 16.5 stories. It was a lot more than that for the south tower.

It was about 13% for the north tower but it did not rotate.

psik

so you think a 30 story building falling isnt gonna cause a ruckus?

[Matthew Cline]

The problem is the lack of the rotation of the block being reflected in the destruction bellow it.

How should a rotating upper block cause damage differently than a non-rotating upper block? What damage would you expect the rotating upper block to cause that wasn't observed?

[Hokulele]

.
Jesus H. Christ!

The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor. So it was more like 29 stories of 110.

29/110 = 26%
28/110 = 25%

15% would be only 16.5 stories. It was a lot more than that for the south tower.

It was about 13% for the north tower but it did not rotate.

psik


Yeah, that's going to make a difference. :rolleyes:

[VespaGuy]

Actually I studied architecture into college and moved to physics from there.

Really? What architecture courses did you take?

[triforcharity]

Building Blocks 101

Advanced Leggos

K-nex - The next step.

Oh, and Excelerated stacking

I think that sums it up!!

[psikeyhackr]

Yeah, that's going to make a difference. :rolleyes:
.
It makes no difference in what happened to the building but it shows how much some people here pay attention to the facts. Or maybe they just can't do math.

psik

[Hokulele]

It makes no difference in what happened to the building but it shows how much some people here pay attention to the facts. Or maybe they just can't do math.


It shows how CTists, when their argument lies in shreds, focus on irrelevant minutiae.

[psikeyhackr]

It shows how CTists, when their argument lies in shreds, focus on irrelevant minutiae.
.
Yeah right!

If I made a mistake like that how many people would be jumping all over me? LOL

Like things are in shreds because YOU say so. When did Ryan Mackey ever mention whether or not the center of mass was beyond the edge of the CORE? You people can just leave out whatever information you want or fail to ask about anything you want and still claim to be correct.

What force could make that mass rotate 52 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from impact of the plane when the plane only moved it less than 16 inches?

psik

[Hokulele]

What force could make that mass rotate 52 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from impact of the plane when the plane only moved it less than 16 inches?


Gravity.

[kylebisme]

I covered this in great depth in my whitepaper (http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf)...

I finally got though your appendix B:

In the first part, you took the mass of the tower, wrapped it in a ball, and then dropped it from the height of the tower to see how much potential energy it released. What was the point of that?

Then you attempted to solve for the structural integrity of the tower by comparing the rate at which it collapsed to the acceleration of gravity, and went on to claim how much TNT it would have took to make it fall so quick, and concluded it had to have been gravity rather than TNT. Do you not see a problem with that?

[Hokulele]

In the first part, you took the mass of the tower, wrapped it in a ball, and then dropped it from the height of the tower to see how much potential energy it released. What was the point of that?


They didn't cover it in your physics classes?

[WildCat]

kyle, did you drop a bowling ball from over your mama's glass coffee table yet? Did it stop in mid-air, move over a few feet, and then continue downward so as to "follow the path of least resistance"?

[alienentity]

.


What force could make that mass rotate 52 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from impact of the plane when the plane only moved it less than 16 inches?

psik

nanothermite rockets? After all, they are seen shooting out of the towers in all directions. A few even went into orbit, i heard. NASA had to shoot them down with laser weapons. All very hush-hush, on the QT.

[kylebisme]

I think it's from a BBC production ("Why The Towers Fell").
During the last few minutes, it discusses the collapse mechanism of the South Tower. It is surmised there that the initial impact was ruled out as the direct cause of collapse and that the building fell (away from the jet impact zone) toward the fire in the NE corner.

Am I confusing something?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799&ei=k0%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3EKsSpX2Mab0qgKTxZWtAw&q#docid=2741743293567850827
It isn't you confusing things there, it's the people who made that absurd animation. They show the floor beams sitting alone and just falling off onto the ones bellow as if they had been held together with glue, which is just absurd. when in fact that were bolted and welded to be just as strong if not stronger than the steel beams themselves, and not just connected on the edges, but bolted and welded into to the floor pan above.

How should a rotating upper block cause damage differently than a non-rotating upper block? What damage would you expect the rotating upper block to cause that wasn't observed?
Please see here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5102809&postcount=112).

What part of "the force is straight down as physics dictates" is confusing you?
I have long been clear on that. What part of "so is the path of most resistance" confusing to you?


You mean the expellling of all the smoke within the fire floors as their floors become closer to their ceilings and the thousand square feet of drywall gets crushed in a second or two.? That cloud of 'dust'?
I mean the dust and debris that are just as thick and white as the destructing building beside it. Besides, surely you don't mean to tell me that top section landed mostly in one piece before shattering into billions?

kyle, did you drop a bowling ball from over your mama's glass coffee table yet? Did it stop in mid-air, move over a few feet, and then continue downward so as to "follow the path of least resistance"?
I'd appreciate it you could restrain yourself from bringing my long departed mother into this. But I've got an opposed experiment for you. Try stacking 80glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that, then you tell me were the path of least resistance winds up.

[VespaGuy]

@kylebisme

What architecture courses did you take?

[Reactor drone]

This actually exemplifies my point well, the first illustration that is. With the red block at the angle it is, would you expect the destruction of the blue block below to be horizontal, or match the angle of the red block?

Why do you think the destruction was horizontal?It looks to me like there was an angle to the destruction,not a huge angle I'll grant you but then you wouldn't expect the angle to be huge given that the top of the tower hadn't rotated very far when the fulcrum was destroyed and the entire upper section started descending.

Expulsion of air as the building collapses follows the floor lines and you may be mistaking this for a "flat" collapse.

[R.Mackey]

I finally got though your appendix B:

In the first part, you took the mass of the tower, wrapped it in a ball, and then dropped it from the height of the tower to see how much potential energy it released. What was the point of that?

I did not. I computed the total energy as a proper integral. Read it again, and see if you get it this time.

Then you attempted to solve for the structural integrity of the tower by comparing the rate at which it collapsed to the acceleration of gravity, and went on to claim how much TNT it would have took to make it fall so quick, and concluded it had to have been gravity rather than TNT. Do you not see a problem with that?

Your powers of comprehension are not promising. I did not solve for the "structural integrity of the tower," which is not even a well defined quantity. What I did instead was demonstrate that the time of fall means the lower portion absorbed a huge amount of energy during the collapse, indeed a number far, far higher than could have possibly been present in the form of explosives under even the wildest Truth Movement hypothesis. It proves that the Towers did not come down "too fast," but indeed, that any collapse, even one that absorbed practically all of the gravitational energy, would take only a few seconds longer than a true "free-fall."

If you've lost your own train of thought, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5095051#post5095051) was my actual response. You were looking for a way to compare a "free fall" versus a fall impeded by the lower structure, and the effect it would have on the collapse time. That is precisely what Appendix B provides. If you don't understand that, you should probably re-read it or ask someone knowledgeable in physics to explain it to you.

[kylebisme]

What force could make that mass rotate 52 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from impact of the plane when the plane only moved it less than 16 inches?

Much of the support was knocked out in that corner, the jet fuel fire heated up the steel in the area to the point of weakening it considerably, and the remaining office fires kept the steel rather warm, making it more flexible. Gravity is of course acting on the system the whole time, and those remaining beams slowly flex under the weight above them for that 52 minutes, at which point they had been bent so far that they simply folded over.

[Matthew Cline]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2243709&postcount=1243
This actually exemplifies my point well, the first illustration that is. With the red block at the angle it is, would you expect the destruction of the blue block below to be horizontal, or match the angle of the red block?

http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC1.jpg

So, are you saying that :

1) As the floors of the blue block were being destroyed, that the right side of each floor should have been destroyed before the left side, but what actually happened was that the left, right and center of each floor was destroyed simultaneously?

2) The tilt of the red block should have pushed the rubble of the blue block to the left?

[kylebisme]

Why do you think the destruction was horizontal?It looks to me like there was an angle to the destruction...
Please show me this angle compared to horizontal, with my image or any you like.

[kylebisme]

I did not. I computed the total energy as a proper integral. Read it again, and see if you get it this time.
U = M g H / 3 = (3 x 108 kg) (9.8 m/s2) (417 m) / 3 = 4.09 x 1011 kg m / s2

You've got your estimated mass of the tower there, the height of the tower, and gravity; and you basicly just wrapped that combined mass of the tower into a ball and dropped it from the hight of the tower. Again, I am curious to know; what point did you see in doing this?


I did not solve for the "structural integrity of the tower," which is not even a well defined quantity. What I did instead was demonstrate that the time of fall means the lower portion absorbed a huge amount of energy during the collapse...
What are you suggesting absorbed a huge amount of energy during the collapse if not the structural integrity of the tower?

... indeed a number far, far higher than could have possibly been present in the form of explosives under even the wildest Truth Movement hypothesis. It proves that the Towers did not come down "too fast," but indeed, that any collapse, even one that absorbed practically all of the gravitational energy, would take only a few seconds longer than a true "free-fall."
And here you are suggesting explosives and gravity is an either/or situation. Again, do you not see a problem with that?

[kylebisme]

So, are you saying that :

1) As the floors of the blue block were being destroyed, that the right side of each floor should have been destroyed before the left side, but what actually happened was that the left, right and center of each floor was destroyed simultaneously?

2) The tilt of the red block should have pushed the rubble of the blue block to the left?
1)Exactly.

2) Of course the rubble goes down.

3. Profit? :D

[R.Mackey]

U = M g H / 3 = (3 x 108 kg) (9.8 m/s2) (417 m) / 3 = 4.09 x 1011 kg m / s2

You've got your estimated mass of the tower there, the height of the tower, and gravity; and you basicly just wrapped that combined mass of the tower into a ball and dropped it from the hight of the tower. Again, I am curious to know; what point did you see in doing this?

You skipped the earlier parts of the derivation. The big thing that looks like an "S" is called an "integral." Think of it as summing the area under a curve. The reason I did this is because you were the one confused about collapse time versus energy. Before one can speak intelligently about this problem, one needs to know how much energy one is speaking of. Virtually everyone else who read it seems to have understood.

What are you suggesting absorbed a huge amount of energy during the collapse if not the structural integrity of the tower?

Again, "structural integrity" is not a well defined term.

BLGB proves that the overwhelming fraction is absorbed through momentum transfer, dependent on the inertia of the lower block, and not its strength. This is also intuitive once you realize that steel only strains a few percent before it fractures or buckles.

And here you are suggesting explosives and gravity is an either/or situation. Again, do you not see a problem with that?

You aren't making any sense. You wanted to know why the collapse happened so fast. I explained it to you. They all happen quickly. This obviates any need for explosives.

If there were an evil plot to rule the universe, they would be smart enough to run this calculation as well, and they would therefore not bother planting additional explosives to "help" the collapse progress. Once it starts, it's all over. Only the truly inept -- the Truth Movement -- haven't figured this out yet.

[bill smith]

Very interesting discussion here. I hope RM sticks around for a while and does not 'raise his shields' by using the 'ignore' button anytime soon.

[kylebisme]

The reason I did this is because you were the one confused about collapse time versus energy. Before one can speak intelligently about this problem, one needs to know how much energy one is speaking of. Virtually everyone else who read it seems to have understood.
I understand that the potential energy of the system in question is not relative to the whole of the mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower, and I would hope everyone else can at least come to terms with that at some point too.

Again, "structural integrity" is not a well defined term.
What would you call the resistance afforded by the structure of the system of mass being crushed, and what were you attempting to solve for in your equation "1 – a / g" if not that?

BLGB proves that the overwhelming fraction is absorbed through momentum transfer, dependent on the inertia of the lower block, and not its strength.
Where can I find this alleged proof?

You aren't making any sense. You wanted to know why the collapse happened so fast. I explained it to you. They all happen quickly.
Can you provide alternate examples?

If there were an evil plot to rule the universe, they would be smart enough to run this calculation as well, and they would therefore not bother planting additional explosives to "help" the collapse progress. Once it starts, it's all over.
Sure, like if you stack 80 glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that; once it starts, it's all over, eh? Assuming 10mm glass with a 1 kg/mm/mm tensile strength spaced 500mm apart, and a 10 kg ball with a 200mm diameter given say 100m over the top of the structure just for fun, how close to free fall would expect that ball to get after connecting with the first sheet of glass?

[GlennB]

Sure, like if you stack 80 glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that; once it starts, it's all over, eh? Assuming 10mm glass with a 1 kg/mm/mm tensile strength spaced 500mm apart, and a 10 kg ball with a 200mm diameter given say 100m over the top of the structure just for fun, how close to free fall would expect that get after connecting with the first sheet of glass?

That's a terrible analogy. And a person such as yourself who "... studied architecture into college and moved to physics from there" should know why.

[kylebisme]

I simply improved on WildCat's single coffee table analogy, which I consider a reasonable simplified example. If you feel you can provide a better one, please share.

[GlennB]

I simply improved on WildCat's single coffee table analogy, which I consider a reasonable simplified example. If you feel you can provide a better one, please share.

Wildcat's analogy was intended to illustrate the superficiality of this so-called "path of least resistance" argument. As such, it was perfectly reasonable. Personally I prefer the analogy of dropping stones of various sizes from various heights onto a greenhouse roof. Sometimes they bounce sideways, sometimes they smash through. It depends.

Dropping a bowling ball on a stack of 80 glass coffee tables as an analogy to the WTC collapse mechanism, however, fails in many ways. With your educational background I'm sure that you can tell us what they are.

[~enigma~]

I have long been clear on that. What part of "so is the path of most resistance" confusing to you?
That's physics only in Truther World theme park. I hope you paid less then 39.95 for your admission and they gave you a neon green bracelet cause that gives you access to all the rides.

[kylebisme]

Wildcat's analogy was intended to illustrate the superficiality of this so-called "path of least resistance" argument.
Yet his analogy only has a single piece of mass to act as resistance, while the towers were made up of many pieces of mass, which is why I expanded his analogy by stacking tables.

Dropping a bowling ball on a stack of 80 glass coffee tables as an analogy to the WTC collapse mechanism, however, fails in many ways.
If you believe you have a rational argument to support this claim, then have out with it already. At this point I'm getting the impression you are just waving your hand around in your pocket, pretending you have something there.
That's physics only in Truther World theme park.
Are you suggesting the building wasn't straight down, that it wasn't otherwise surrounded by are or that the building provided less resistance than air?

[~enigma~]

Are you suggesting the building wasn't straight down, that it wasn't otherwise surrounded by are or that the building provided less resistance than air?
Apparently you have not mastered reading comprehension yet. I am suggesting NOTHING but did plainly state that "the path of least resistance" is not a law in physics.

[TruthersLie]

Wildcat's analogy was intended to illustrate the superficiality of this so-called "path of least resistance" argument. As such, it was perfectly reasonable. Personally I prefer the analogy of dropping stones of various sizes from various heights onto a greenhouse roof. Sometimes they bounce sideways, sometimes they smash through. It depends.

Dropping a bowling ball on a stack of 80 glass coffee tables as an analogy to the WTC collapse mechanism, however, fails in many ways. With your educational background I'm sure that you can tell us what they are.

Oh oh oh ...

choose me, choose me.

It is called SCALE.

I bet he went to the same architecture/engineering school that heiwa did....

[TruthersLie]

Apparently you have not mastered reading comprehension yet. I am suggesting NOTHING but did plainly state that "the path of least resistance" is not a law in physics.

Enigma... when have you ever met a truther who has any kind of reading comprhension skills?

This one thought the engine on an old puegeot was steel, then shifted to the body work being made of steel from a VERY bad table which he misread.

He has tried to pass off the "explosions" from the oral histories and the "molten steel" lies...

So it is nothing more than a typical twoof (and IMHO a sock)

[PixyMisa]

Sure, like if you stack 80 glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that; once it starts, it's all over, eh? Assuming 10mm glass with a 1 kg/mm/mm tensile strength spaced 500mm apart, and a 10 kg ball with a 200mm diameter given say 100m over the top of the structure just for fun, how close to free fall would expect that ball to get after connecting with the first sheet of glass?
Now try it with 1mm glass. Oh, that made a difference, didn't it? Funny how scale matters.

[PixyMisa]

I bet he went to the same architecture/engineering school that heiwa did....
That's the most horrifying thought I've run across all year. :covereyes

[GlennB]

If you believe you have a rational argument to support this claim, then have out with it already. At this point I'm getting the impression you are just waving your hand around in your pocket, pretending you have something there.



Why can a cat happily jump down 2 or 3 times its body length, while an elephant trying the same trick would smash its bones and rupture its internal organs, leading to a speedy death?

Oh wait - TruthersLie already claimed this one ;)

With your knowledge of architecture and physics, why didn't you see this coming?

[Myriad]

I understand that the potential energy of the system in question is not relative to the whole of the mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower, and I would hope everyone else can at least come to terms with that at some point too.


If he'd calculated the potential energy of the whole mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower, the equation would have been U = M g H.

The equation R.Mackey actually derived does contain factors of M and H, so in that sense the potential energy of the system is expressed "relative to" the whole mass of the tower and relative to the maximum height of the tower, but it is not equal to that value, or even close to it.

If R.Mackey made a mathematical error, you should be able to point out the actual error, not just complain that the answer contains terms you don't personally approve of.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[WildCat]

when in fact that were bolted and welded to be just as strong if not stronger than the steel beams themselves, and not just connected on the edges, but bolted and welded into to the floor pan above.
So much wrong here! The connections are the weak point, and floor pans do not add to the strength.

I'd appreciate it you could restrain yourself from bringing my long departed mother into this. But I've got an opposed experiment for you. Try stacking 80glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that, then you tell me were the path of least resistance winds up.
It's done to point out the absurdity of your "path of least resisstance" argument. The path of least resistance is straight down, because he force required to break a floor is much, much less than the force required to move 20 floors 1 acre each in size 200 feet sideways to clear the building.

In what college were you an architecture and physics student?

[TruthersLie]

So much wrong here! The connections are the weak point, and floor pans do not add to the strength.


It's done to point out the absurdity of your "path of least resisstance" argument. The path of least resistance is straight down, because he force required to break a floor is much, much less than the force required to move 20 floors 1 acre each in size 200 feet sideways to clear the building.

In what college were you an architecture and physics student?

Wildcat... I have already answered it. From the asinine statements and outright poor reading comprehension skills, he must have went to the same school that Heiwa went to. The Wiley Coyote School of Advanced Physics and stuff.

[TruthersLie]

Yet his analogy only has a single piece of mass to act as resistance, while the towers were made up of many pieces of mass, which is why I expanded his analogy by stacking tables.

If you believe you have a rational argument to support this claim, then have out with it already. At this point I'm getting the impression you are just waving your hand around in your pocket, pretending you have something there.

Are you suggesting the building wasn't straight down, that it wasn't otherwise surrounded by are or that the building provided less resistance than air?

Maybe you should take some pointers.

ZsDn6es7mtk

AGain and again... the problem is about SCALE (which you don't seem to understand).
Y4SQH7gUIj8

still waiting for those citations
a. puegeots body is steel
b. nanothermite tiles exist
c. proof of molten steel at gz
d. proof of any type of "public safety policy" which would have advocated putting CD charges in any building.
e. proof of any type of CD charges which use thermite

[VespaGuy]

With your knowledge of architecture and physics, why didn't you see this coming?

I'm still waiting for kylebisme to let us know the depth of his architectural knowledge. I wonder why he keeps ignoring my question...

[SpitfireIX]

Student Grade Report

Student: kylebisme

Calculus II: F
Physics I: F
Statics: F
Strength of Materials: F

[TruthersLie]

I'm still waiting for kylebisme to let us know the depth of his architectural knowledge. I wonder why he keeps ignoring my question...

OH he has stated he started architecture switched to physics, but didn't want to go in debt so didn't finish.

It does help to actually FINISH the coursework... things make soooooo much more sense.

[psikeyhackr]

http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC1.jpg

So, are you saying that :

1) As the floors of the blue block were being destroyed, that the right side of each floor should have been destroyed before the left side, but what actually happened was that the left, right and center of each floor was destroyed simultaneously?

2) The tilt of the red block should have pushed the rubble of the blue block to the left?
.
That is what might happen as a result of FIRE and GRAVITY.

But it is obvious from this video that that is not what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

It looks like the bottom of the upper broken portion moved horizontally about 20 feet. So what force could do that?

um

[GlennB]

.

It looks like the bottom of the upper broken portion moved horizontally about 20 feet. So what force could do that?

um

Well, neither explosives nor space-beams could do it. So it must have been MOTHRA.

[Mancman]

.
Jesus H. Christ!

The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor. So it was more like 29 stories of 110.

29/110 = 26%
28/110 = 25%

15% would be only 16.5 stories. It was a lot more than that for the south tower.

It was about 13% for the north tower but it did not rotate.

psik

The top of the North Tower did rotate:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/102524aae6d3f14d4f.jpg

[R.Mackey]

I understand that the potential energy of the system in question is not relative to the whole of the mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower, and I would hope everyone else can at least come to terms with that at some point too.

I have no idea where you're going with this. You still don't appear to have actually understood my Appendix B.

What would you call the resistance afforded by the structure of the system of mass being crushed, and what were you attempting to solve for in your equation "1 – a / g" if not that?

What units does "structural integrity" have?

What I computed, as you would know if you actually read Appendix B, is the fraction of gravitational energy absorbed by the structure during collapse. Most of that is through inelastic collisions -- overcoming inertia. Not overcoming structural strength.

Where can I find this alleged proof?

ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics, v. 134 (2008). A preprint is available here (http://www.crono911.net/docs/Bazant2007.pdf). Feel free to ask help with the equations.

Can you provide alternate examples?

Any of the verinage demolition videos should do nicely.

Sure, like if you stack 80 glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that; once it starts, it's all over, eh? Assuming 10mm glass with a 1 kg/mm/mm tensile strength spaced 500mm apart, and a 10 kg ball with a 200mm diameter given say 100m over the top of the structure just for fun, how close to free fall would expect that ball to get after connecting with the first sheet of glass?

As others have noted, this is ignorant of scale. While your hypothetical construction would collapse quickly, it's not a very good model and won't tell us much about the real collapses. I provided a simplified lecture of scale on Hardfire some months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsDn6es7mtk

[beachnut]

Student Grade Report

Student: kylebisme

Calculus II: F
Physics I: F
Statics: F
Strength of Materials: F
And he is given the answers.

[Arus808]

I am suggesting NOTHING but did plainly state that "the path of least resistance" is not a law in physics.

I thought that "the path of least resistance" has to do with electricity flow through a circuit, or where a liquid, relies on another physical object to determine its path, by gravity. I also remember that it has to do with weather (storms) flowing from a high pressure area to a lower one.


Am I wrong? sorry, I haven't touched any science since I was in first year of college.

[VespaGuy]

OH he has stated he started architecture switched to physics, but didn't want to go in debt so didn't finish.

And keep in mind that he didn't even claim to have majored in architecture. He only claimed to have studied it, which could mean anything from taking a single "History of Architecture" course to completing a 5 year program.

I know what I'm leaning towards.

[Mr.Herbert]

Well, neither explosives nor space-beams could do it. So it must have been MOTHRA.

Although it is possible that Mothra played a hand it this, Mothra was typically an alli to the human race and often fought against the monsters that threatened us. This of course can all be dismissed once the NWO gets involved.

The "tilt" and collapse could have very well been casued by Rodan. Rodan's wingspan was a little shorter than Mothra's, but his weight is estimated to be that of almost 5,000 tons more than Mothra's.

Rodan:

Height 50-100 meters
Weight 15,000-30,000 tons
Wingspan 120-200 meters
Air speed Mach 1-15


http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/rodan7.jpg


Mothra:

Weight
Larval form
9,000-15,000tons
Adult form
15,000-25,000 tons
Wingspan75-250 metres
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/MOSURA.jpg

[TruthersLie]

See... the Mothra movement grows...

in fact it seems to be growing FASTER than the TM. IN 2 days, I have 2 more people converted...

[alienentity]

Mothra's presence explains the rocket-like behavior of David Chandler's bits and pieces:

As Mothra's wings flap, they create giant air gusts. Perhaps that's also why the buildings and rubble fell at faster than freefall speed (Chandler again).

Count me in. That's 3 of us. If we have a Mothra did 9/11 rally, we'll have almost as many as a typical truther rally. Someone should have a teeshirt made. I'll buy it.

[JohnG]

As Mothra's wings flap, they create giant air gusts. Perhaps that's also why the buildings and rubble fell at faster than freefall speed (Chandler again).


Gives new meaning to the term "Butterfly Effect".

[jaydeehess]

.
Jesus H. Christ!

The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor. So it was more like 29 stories of 110.

29/110 = 26%
28/110 = 25%

15% would be only 16.5 stories. It was a lot more than that for the south tower.

It was about 13% for the north tower but it did not rotate.

psik

<<sighs>>

Will you be argueing over such strawmen continually?

OK then what portion of the 26% of the building which was rotating was no longer over the lower portion of the structure and therefore not falling directly the lower portion of the structure?

How different from an omnidirectional distribution was the debris of WTC 2?

How is this different than what you would expect and how does this point to something other than what the so called "official" history of the events.

[kylebisme]

I am suggesting NOTHING but did plainly state that "the path of least resistance" is not a law in physics.
Yet I never said anything to suggest the path of least resistance is a law of physics. That said, it is wrong to claim otherwise in such general terms. As Arus mentioned, the path of least resistance is a law of the physics of electricity, commonly known as Ohm's Law. Of course we are not talking about electricity, here but rather mass, and in the case of mass the path of least resistance is a principle of physics.
Now try it with 1mm glass. Oh, that made a difference, didn't it? Funny how scale matters.
Of course scale matters in many regards, but go ahead and change the thickness of the glass as you suggest, my point stands regardless.
Why can a cat happily jump down 2 or 3 times its body length, while an elephant trying the same trick would smash its bones and rupture its internal organs, leading to a speedy death?
I you would first be so kind as to either provide a better analogy than the one I presented, or renounce your criticism against it, I would be happy to reciprocate by answering your question.
If he'd calculated the potential energy of the whole mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower, the equation would have been U = M g H.
Right, he also divided that by 3.

The equation R.Mackey actually derived does contain factors of M and H, so in that sense the potential energy of the system is expressed "relative to" the whole mass of the tower and relative to the maximum height of the tower, but it is not equal to that value, or even close to it.

Which is why I said "relative to" rather than "equal to".

If R.Mackey made a mathematical error...

I never suggested he did, but rather am taking issue with the conceptualization he used to derive his equation. Again, the potential energy of the system in question is not relative to the whole of the mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower. Dividing that value by 3 does nothing to change that.

What units does "structural integrity" have?
In simple terms, newtons. Of course the structural integrity of a mass is dependent on where it interacts with another mass in a particular situation, and for an interconnected system of masses deriving such values becomes exceedingly complicated. That said, a quick Google search brought up a decent overview of this problem (http://www.technet.pnl.gov/dme/structural/index.stm) which might help clarify the matter.

What I computed .... is the fraction of gravitational energy absorbed by the structure during collapse. Most of that is through inelastic collisions -- overcoming inertia. Not overcoming structural strength.
The inertia of the parts of the system are elements of its structural strength, and you are arguing the tower fell as quick as it did because it couldn't provide any more structural integrity than provided by the inertia you attempted to calculate it did.

Any of the verinage demolition videos should do nicely.
I'm not familiar with the videos you allude to, but since you have just suggested the collapse of the towers happening so fast is comparable to some form of demolition, it seems we have come to an agreement here.

While your hypothetical construction would collapse quickly, it's not a very good model and won't tell us much about the real collapses.
If you think you can provide a better model, please share.

ETA
*Fixed "allude" for the sake of Johnny's sanity.

[johnny karate]

Not to be a nitpicker, but the word you're looking for is "allude". The fact that you keep using "elude" in its place is driving me crazy.

[alienentity]

'I'm not familiar with the videos you elude to, but since you have just suggested the collapse of the towers happening so fast is comparable to of some demolition, it seems we have come to an agreement here.'

The verinage technique employs hydraulics or cables to remove support, usually about halfway up a tower.
The lower floors, according to patent applications, are specifically not weakened, for safety reasons.

Verinage simply gets the upper block to fall at least one floor, and gravity does the rest. They don't even use nanothermite rockets. Who knew?

Verinage collapses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s

[rwguinn]

Not to be a nitpicker, but the word you're looking for is "allude". The fact that you keep using ""elude" in its place is driving me crazy.
But it's factual!
Actuality and reality ELUDE the truthers...

[psikeyhackr]

<<sighs>>

Will you be argueing over such strawmen continually?

OK then what portion of the 26% of the building which was rotating was no longer over the lower portion of the structure and therefore not falling directly the lower portion of the structure?

How different from an omnidirectional distribution was the debris of WTC 2?

How is this different than what you would expect and how does this point to something other than what the so called "official" history of the events.
.
I am not arguing about the percentage I was just telling you that your percentage was wrong. I have been thinking of it as 25% for years so as soon as I saw 15% I knew it was too high for the north tower and too low for the south. So it was odd that anyone who has been talking about this subject for a long time to be so far off.

It is funny how often people throw up the term "starwman" as though that accomplishes something. I am beginning to think of it a a signal that the person knows they are talking BS. :D

psik

[jaydeehess]

arrrgh, long post to reply to psikey went to bit heaven

I am too tired to rewrite it and others are having a go at it anyway.

[jaydeehess]

.
I am not arguing about the percentage I was just telling you that your percentage was wrong. I have been thinking of it as 25% for years so as soon as I saw 15% I knew it was too high for the north tower and too low for the south. So it was odd that anyone who has been talking about this subject for a long time to be so far off.

It is funny how often people throw up the term "starwman" as though that accomplishes something. I am beginning to think of it a a signal that the person knows they are talking BS. :D

psik

I used the term "Starwman":D ? (now a David Bowie song will be stuck in my head for hours)

Yes, had you done the same others would have jumped on it and you would have balked at such a strawman attack. My bad, I recalled impact at around the 95th floor, slightly off and wrong building. My bad


Despite the fact that I said I was not going to rewrite, the final point I made was that all that was required was for there to be enough loading on the floors of the lower structure to fail them and thus tear away, violently it should be noted, the lateral support system for the columns. After that the structure will collapse, completely. Now we have people telling us that the distribution of debris should be less omnidirectional beacuse a small percentage of the structure was not over the lower portion of the building..

Short answer is that gravity works, it always works, and it always works in a vector aimed at the center of the planet.

Now,,,, if only this post will go through. I've lost two today.
ETA: this one took two tries. Luckily I copied it to notepad

[kylebisme]

The verinage technique employs hydraulics or cables to remove support, usually about halfway up a tower.
The lower floors, according to patent applications, are specifically not weakened, for safety reasons.

Verinage simply gets the upper block to fall at least one floor, and gravity does the rest. They don't even use nanothermite rockets. Who knew?

Ah, yeah, they were mentioned to me in a PM by another member erlier as "the French demos", I simply wasn't familiar with the term "verinage". Anyway, the videos you posted do show an unsual form of controlled demolition, using cables to pull out supporting structure rather than explosives to blast it out. Furthermore, note how the velocity of the upper mass decreases after coming into contact with the lower mass, demonstrating the resistance provided by that lower mass. Also consider how much more the deceleration would have been had that lower structure been not simply concrete but rather also framed with steel.

[dudalb]

Not to be a nitpicker, but the word you're looking for is "allude". The fact that you keep using "elude" in its place is driving me crazy.

I see the OP had problems with English as well as Physics.

[alienentity]

Not to be a nitpicker, but the word you're looking for is "allude". The fact that you keep using ""elude" in its place is driving me crazy.

I think that distinction has eluded him...or it is alluded?:D

[alienentity]

Ah, yeah, they were mentioned to me in a PM by another member erlier as "the French demos", I simply wasn't familiar with the term "verinage". Anyway, the videos you posted do show an unsual form of controlled demolition, using cables to pull out supporting structure rather than explosives to blast it out. Furthermore, note how the velocity of the upper mass decreases after coming into contact with the lower mass, demonstrating the resistance provided by that lower mass. Also consider how much more the deceleration would have been had that lower structure been not simply concrete but rather also framed with steel.

Yes, it is noteworthy that the WTC collapses don't look like controlled demolitions. You are correct. :D

Again you correctly note that the verinage videos show a nice, neat collision between well-aligned blocks, once again unlike the messy, tube-in-tube WTC tower collisions. This is what Ryan was pointing out to you, vis-a-vis the famous 'missing jolt' of T. Szamboti.

Funny, the more you compare the WTC collapses with real controlled demolition, the less like CD they look. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. But it's driving truthers absolutely bonkers. They've been claiming for years that an upper block simply crush down a lower block as shown by Bazant et al.
Turns out they were wrong again. As they say in France, 'Quelle Surprise!'

Edit: Correction, a truther is never 'wrong' per se. So long as they can quickly move on to the next conspiracy talking point, they see success and validation.

Often (and increasingly) they find comfort in the paradigm of Wolfgang Pauli, as in 'That's not right. It's not even wrong'.

[~enigma~]

I thought that "the path of least resistance" has to do with electricity flow through a circuit, or where a liquid, relies on another physical object to determine its path, by gravity. I also remember that it has to do with weather (storms) flowing from a high pressure area to a lower one.


Am I wrong? sorry, I haven't touched any science since I was in first year of college.
It isn't a law so unless you claim it is, you are not wrong.

[~enigma~]

Yet I never said anything to suggest the path of least resistance is a law of physics. That said, it is wrong to claim otherwise in such general terms. As Arus mentioned, the path of least resistance is a law of the physics of electricity, commonly known as Ohm's Law. Of course we are not talking about electricity, here but rather mass, and in the case of mass the path of least resistance is a principle of physics.
It isn't a law. As you correctly say here it is a principle but principles (or rules of thumb) are often found to be wrong (in some cases). Unfortunately for the idiot TM, they refuse to recognize that it doesn't apply.

[kylebisme]

Yes, it is noteworthy that the WTC collapses don't look like controlled demolitions.
Rather, the WTC collapses don't look like the controlled demolitions you've shown, or any other I've ever seen. Are you unwilling to discuss the points I noted on differences between the WTC collapses and those in the videos you linked?

It isn't a law so unless you claim it is, you are not wrong.
Again, the path of lease resistance is a law in the physics of electricity, Ohm's law.

As you correctly say here it is a principle but principles (or rules of thumb) are often found to be wrong (in some cases).
You are wrong in saying that a principle of physics is a rule of thumb, or that any are ever found wrong. The path of least resistance, in regard to matter, is directly related to Newton's third law. The difference between the law and the principle here is; an object in motion will always stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, while an mass will only follow the path of least resistance unless it exerts work to do otherwise. For instance, find yourself a nice grassy hill, lay down, and let yourself roll down it. Doing so, you will follow the path of least resistance, but of course you can walk right back up that hill against resistance if you care to put the work into it.

[~enigma~]

Again, the path of lease resistance is a law in the physics of electricity, Ohm's law.Do you even read what you write? The law is Ohm's law. There is no law called "The Path Of Least Resistance." Only retards and the TM think it is a law.

[WildCat]

For instance, find yourself a nice grassy hill, lay down, and let yourself roll down it. Doing so, you will follow the path of least resistance, but of course you can walk right back up that hill against resistance if you care to put the work into it.
And likewise the top 20 floors of the WTC crashed right through the floor below it, then those 21 floors crashed right through the next floor, then those 22 floors crashed right through the next floor, and so on and so on. No explosives, therm*te, space beams, mini-nukes, hush-a-booms, Mothra, etc etc needed.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand Mr. Physics?

[DGM]

Rather, the WTC collapses don't look like the controlled demolitions you've shown, or any other I've ever seen. Are you unwilling to discuss the points I noted on differences between the WTC collapses and those in the videos you linked?


Again, the path of lease resistance is a law in the physics of electricity, Ohm's law.


You are wrong in saying that a principle of physics is a rule of thumb, or that any are ever found wrong. The path of least resistance, in regard to matter, is directly related to Newton's third law. The difference between the law and the principle here is; an object in motion will always stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, while an mass will only follow the path of least resistance unless it exerts work to do otherwise. For instance, find yourself a nice grassy hill, lay down, and let yourself roll down it. Doing so, you will follow the path of least resistance, but of course you can walk right back up that hill against resistance if you care to put the work into it.
The force stopping you from falling a further (straight down) is the hill. Any more lame analogies?

[kylebisme]

And likewise the top 20 floors of the WTC crashed right through the floor below it, then those 21 floors crashed right through the next floor, then those 22 floors crashed right through the next floor, and so on and so on.
This is a wildly inaccurate recount of the observable phenomena (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0).

The force stopping you from falling a further (straight down) is the hill.
Not that I suggested otherwise.


Any more lame analogies?
I can drop by a library and quote one out of a high school physics book if you insist, but it wouldn't say anything different than I did.

[WildCat]

This is a wildly inaccurate recount of the observable phenomena (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0).
It's exactly that. What do you think that video shows?

[tsig]

[QUOTE=
Again, the path of lease resistance is a law in the physics of electricity, Ohm's law.


[/QUOTE]

Ohm's law:

E=IR is simply an equation that says "the voltage is equal to the current times the resistance". It does not mention paths or renting property.

[alienentity]

Rather, the WTC collapses don't look like the controlled demolitions you've shown, or any other I've ever seen. Are you unwilling to discuss the points I noted on differences between the WTC collapses and those in the videos you linked?


.

As noted elsewhere many times, the verinage demolitions are expected to produce a Bazant - theorized 'jolt', if the upper block drops neatly and squarely onto the structure below.

You then expect a sharp change in acceleration, perhaps even a deceleration.

I think in the case of the WTC towers, there was a noticeable decrease in the rate of acceleration, but it never crossed the line into deceleration. This was also perfectly in keeping with the nature of those collapses.

A number of very experienced, highly qualified engineers have studied this, there are peer-reviewed papers you can read if you wish.
I've been running Tracker software to look at the acceleration rates of various demolitions, and even WTC2. With WTC1, we already know it wasn't in freefall for the period that could be observed, I haven't been able to find pure freefall in WTC2 either.
Nor have I found it in any of the demolitions I've looked at to any significant degree. It seems they all fall at a rate slower than freefall acceleration.

That's to be expected, AFAIK.

The salient point seems to be that:

1) an upper block can indeed crush down a lower block completely, contrary to truther claims
2) explosives are not needed to produce this effect

This is perfectly in line with Bazant's math, the way I understand it. I see no contrary evidence. As I mentioned earlier, it doesn't bother me in the slightest, since I'm expecting gravity to do the job. So are the verinage companies.

If one's position is that there HAD to be explosives in the WTC buildings, then you have a big problem with all this evidence. The logical thing to do is to abandon the bad hypothesis, because it doesn't fit anything from the real world. You might as well be invoking Mothra, it's an equally realistic hypothesis to the painted nanothermite mania. And way cooler.:cool:

[Justin39640]

Ohm's law:

E=IR is simply an equation that says "the voltage is equal to the current times the resistance". It does not mention paths or renting property.

ohms law is about the relationship between volts, amps, and ohms (like you said)

"path of least resistance" is how you explain a simple circuit to a 5th grade science class or to techs who have no idea what the omega symbol on their multimeter represents (sigh :mgbanghead)

[PixyMisa]

Yet I never said anything to suggest the path of least resistance is a law of physics. That said, it is wrong to claim otherwise in such general terms. As Arus mentioned, the path of least resistance is a law of the physics of electricity, commonly known as Ohm's Law. Of course we are not talking about electricity, here but rather mass, and in the case of mass the path of least resistance is a principle of physics.
No it isn't.

Of course scale matters in many regards, but go ahead and change the thickness of the glass as you suggest, my point stands regardless.
No it doesn't.

I you would first be so kind as to either provide a better analogy than the one I presented, or renounce your criticism against it, I would be happy to reciprocate by answering your question.
Your analogy has failed. Time for you to get a new one.

[JimBenArm]

ohms law is about the relationship between volts, amps, and ohms (like you said)

"path of least resistance" is how you explain a simple circuit to a 5th grade science class or to techs who have no idea what the omega symbol on their multimeter represents (sigh :mgbanghead)
I worked as an electrician for over 20 years. Can I do building demolition now?

[stateofgrace]

Yet I never said anything to suggest the path of least resistance is a law of physics. That said, it is wrong to claim otherwise in such general terms. As Arus mentioned, the path of least resistance is a law of the physics of electricity, commonly known as Ohm's Law. Of course we are not talking about electricity, here but rather mass, and in the case of mass the path of least resistance is a principle of physics.

.
Really?

Please carry on, us old hammers and spanners electricians love to hear all about new developments in our field. Do carry on and tell us all about it.

Resistance is what ? Exactly.

[kylebisme]

Ohm's law:

E=IR is simply an equation that says "the voltage is equal to the current times the resistance". It does not mention paths or renting property.
That means that voltage favors the path of least resistance. If you care to, you can find that and more explained here (http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/4f.html).
As noted elsewhere many times, the verinage demolitions are expected to produce a Bazant - theorized 'jolt', if the upper block drops neatly and squarely onto the structure below.
Sure, to shatter the concrete bellow. Again, how would you expect adding steel framing to the lower section of those verinage buildings would have effected this?

I think in the case of the WTC towers, there was a noticeable decrease in the rate of acceleration...
Can you find anything to substantiate this belief in any of the videos of the events?

This was also perfectly in keeping with the nature of those collapses.
Can you cite anything outside the fall of the towers to support this claim, or are you simply comparing the fall of the two towers to each other?

Nor have I found it in any of the demolitions I've looked at to any significant degree. It seems they all fall at a rate slower than freefall acceleration.

All the takes to achieve free fall is to eliminate the structural resistance under the falling mass. The verinage demolitions show a moment of this, as does the fall of building 7.


1) an upper block can indeed crush down a lower block completely, contrary to truther claims
2) explosives are not needed to produce this effect

1) I did not claim otherwise, and would appreciate if you could avoid conflating my comments with the claims of others.
2) Not necessarily, in the system in question, I've yet to find anyone reasonably establish that only gravity is.

[Reactor drone]

This is a wildly inaccurate recount of the observable phenomena (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0).




That video nicely shows the unevenness of the collapse.Due to the tilt there's a whole section of wall that's left standing after the upper block has descended.It also shows how the collapse progresses due to failure of connections between floors and columns.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/outerwallpanelsWTC2.jpg

[~enigma~]

That means that voltage favors the path of least resistance. If you care to, you can find that and more explained here (http://www.rwc.uc.edu/koehler/biophys/4f.html)..
Wait, I thought you swore it was a law. Are you changing your mind now?

[stateofgrace]

That means that voltage favors the path of least resistance. If you care to, you can find that and more explained .

Ohms law does not state this.

You do understand the difference between the voltage across a resistance and the current being drawn thought the resistance, right?

[kylebisme]

No it isn't.

No it doesn't.

Your analogy has failed. Time for you to get a new one.
Your completely unsubstantiated denials demonstrate the lack of sold ground from which you argue. Again, it seems rather obvious at this point that you've just got your empty hand in your pocket, waving it around trying to pretend like you have something there.

[kylebisme]

That video nicely shows the unevenness of the collapse.Due to the tilt there's a whole section of wall that's left standing after the upper block has descended.It also shows how the collapse progresses due to failure of connections between floors and columns.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/swampmonster/outerwallpanelsWTC2.jpg
I was referring to the horizontal nature of of the floors going out during the beginning of the, well before image you presented. Of course some outer columns stood longer than others.

[Myriad]

Yet I never said anything to suggest the path of least resistance is a law of physics. That said, it is wrong to claim otherwise in such general terms. As Arus mentioned, the path of least resistance is a law of the physics of electricity, commonly known as Ohm's Law. Of course we are not talking about electricity, here but rather mass, and in the case of mass the path of least resistance is a principle of physics.


A principle that does not apply to collisions or collapses.

I never suggested he [R.Mackey] did [make a mathematical error], but rather am taking issue with the conceptualization he used to derive his equation. Again, the potential energy of the system in question is not relative to the whole of the mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower. Dividing that value by 3 does nothing to change that.


What a strange claim. The potential energy of the system obviously does depend on the building's mass and height, as well as the distribution of the mass over that height. The distribution determines the coefficient (which would be 1.0 if all the mass were at the top, 0.5 if the mass were distributed evenly, 0.0 if all the mass were at ground level, and so forth; the actual result given a more accurate assessment of the mass distribution was 0.33). You would prefer a result presented in terms of the mass and height of some different building?

But even more to the point, if you do not agree with the results of R.Mackey's calculations, then you should be able to point out his error. You can't claim the results are wrong and also claim that you're not suggesting he made an error. Not and retain any credibility.

Bad arguments will not get you a place at the table, let alone a new investigation. Try to do better.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Reactor drone]

As R.Mackey said earlier,the tilt of the tower was only equivalent to a 2 story difference between sides(maximum) at the point of collapse and with the amount of debris being ejected by the collapsing building that small difference is hard to pick.

Go straight to the source.

1) "Tilt of approximately 3 to 4 degrees to the south and 7 to 8 degrees to the east occurred before bulding section fell." NIST NCSTAR1-6D, Table E-1.

2) A graphical representation of the stress at the moment of collapse initiation (predicted) is given in NCSTAR1-6D, figures 4-120.

3) Not directly, no. The columns above can only transmit a force through them equal to their individual buckling strength, which does not account for the magnitude or complexity of impacts at the interface. Force and destruction are also not directly related quantities in any event.

[Justin39640]

I worked as an electrician for over 20 years. Can I do building demolition now?

snaking cable and running det-cord go hand in hand right? lol

[ktesibios]

Yet I never said anything to suggest the path of least resistance is a law of physics. That said, it is wrong to claim otherwise in such general terms. As Arus mentioned, the path of least resistance is a law of the physics of electricity, commonly known as Ohm's Law.

No. Period. If you can get your hands on an introductory circuit theory textbook, what you want to look up is called the "current divider theorem".
Or you could read the Wiki "current divider" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_divider), which correctly lays out the math.

Simply put, the ratio of the currents in two parallel circuit branches will be equal to the inverse of the ratio of their individual impedances.

Ohm's Law, BTW, is basically a special case of Kirchoff's Voltage Law for circuits having only a single loop, and neither says anything at all about a "path of least resistance".

Linear mechanical systems can sometimes be analyzed in terms of an electrical equivalent circuit (this is not uncommon for loudspeakers), but trying to drag nonexistent "laws" out of circuit theory and use them to prop up troofer misconceptions is just not on.

[tsig]

Your completely unsubstantiated denials demonstrate the lack of sold ground from which you argue. Again, it seems rather obvious at this point that you've just got your empty hand in your pocket, waving it around trying to pretend like you have something there.

Your misunderstanding of basic electricity is not our fault. Ohm's Law only applies to electric circuits and has nothing to do with building failures.

Unless you are arguing that a powerful current was passed thru the steel skeleton of the building causing them to heat and weaken.

[stateofgrace]

No. Period. If you can get your hands on an introductory circuit theory textbook, what you want to look up is called the "current divider theorem".
Or you could read the Wiki "current divider" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_divider), which correctly lays out the math.

Simply put, the ratio of the currents in two parallel circuit branches will be equal to the inverse of the ratio of their individual impedances.

Ohm's Law, BTW, is basically a special case of Kirchoff's Voltage Law for circuits having only a single loop, and neither says anything at all about a "path of least resistance".

Linear mechanical systems can sometimes be analyzed in terms of an electrical equivalent circuit (this is not uncommon for loudspeakers), but trying to drag nonexistent "laws" out of circuit theory and use them to prop up troofer misconceptions is just not on.

Smarty pants, and you wonder why us hammer and spanner guys dislike you electronic pinkies. ;)

[R.Mackey]

Yet I never said anything to suggest the path of least resistance is a law of physics. That said, it is wrong to claim otherwise in such general terms. As Arus mentioned, the path of least resistance is a law of the physics of electricity, commonly known as Ohm's Law. Of course we are not talking about electricity, here but rather mass, and in the case of mass the path of least resistance is a principle of physics.

Oh, my aching head.

As you've already been shown, Ohm's Law is not the "path of least resistance." There is an analogy between electrical impedance and coupled spring response, but really, there is nothing even faintly applicable to the collapses here.

Ohm's Law is also not "The Path of Least Resistance." Furthermore, "The Path of Least Resistance" is not a physical law or even a physical principle. It is a consequence of certain situations -- ones which are not found at the World Trade Center. I wrote up an explanation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5009358#post5009358) just last month for people like you.


Right, he also divided that by 3.I never suggested he did, but rather am taking issue with the conceptualization he used to derive his equation. Again, the potential energy of the system in question is not relative to the whole of the mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower. Dividing that value by 3 does nothing to change that.

In my last reply, somewhat in jest, I referred you to the "integral sign" in my derivation. Apparently you really don't know what that means. The division by 3 is not at all arbitrary; it is, in fact, a pretty good representation of the actual Tower. Anyway, what we learn from this is that you cannot follow even a simple potential energy calculation, even when all the work is shown for you and dumbed down to a high school sophomore level.

In simple terms, newtons. Of course the structural integrity of a mass is dependent on where it interacts with another mass in a particular situation, and for an interconnected system of masses deriving such values becomes exceedingly complicated. That said, a quick Google search brought up a decent overview of this problem (http://www.technet.pnl.gov/dme/structural/index.stm) which might help clarify the matter.

No. A Newton is a unit of force. Structural integrity is not equivalent to a force. As I said, the structural integrity is not a well defined quantity. How well a structure will perform under load is not an intrinsic property of the structure. You have to specify the conditions in much more detail. For instance, two forces that arrive at different angles may have dramatically different effects on the structure.

This is why my calculation does not attempt to gauge "structural integrity." Can't be done. Instead, I looked at energy absorption. And that, again, is what you asked for, even though you've run far away from that discussion ever since.

The inertia of the parts of the system are elements of its structural strength, and you are arguing the tower fell as quick as it did because it couldn't provide any more structural integrity than provided by the inertia you attempted to calculate it did.

I cannot emphasize enough how nonsensical the above is.

"Interia" is not "elements of structural strength." Inertia is, depending on how you're looking at it, either mass or momentum. It has units of kilograms or Newton seconds, respectively. The WTC Towers have the same inertia before and after the collapse, although clearly the structural integrity before versus after is radically changed.

The point which you keep missing, for reasons that are now only too obvious, is that the timing of the "crush-down" style collapse is primarily governed by the mass of the structure and its contents. It is momentum transfer that slows the descent. The strength of the lower block also slows the descent, but not much, practically a round-off error. You could double the strength of the WTC Towers without changing the mass and hardly notice the difference.

That is what BLBG shows, and that is why your fantasies about explosives are singularly idiotic. The structure was coming down. If you want to speed up the collapse, the only way you can do it is by literally rocketing the lower structure to the ground in advance of the descending upper block, or else to ripple-fire the different floors so that there are no collisions at any time. I trust even you will agree that this is ludicrous.

I'm not familiar with the videos you allude to, but since you have just suggested the collapse of the towers happening so fast is comparable to some form of demolition, it seems we have come to an agreement here.

The videos with which you are not familiar describe a particular type of demolition, in which a single floor's worth of supports is suddenly destroyed through cables and hydraulics. This leaves an upper section to fall upon the lower portion, which is frequently much larger than the upper part. The entire structure is destroyed, despite no weakening at all being applied to the lower portion.

This is a pretty good model for a WTC Tower collapse that plays exactly like NIST, Dr. Bazant, and Dr. Seffen all say it did. It has no explosives anywhere, nor any needed. It proves the theory that I've presented and that you cannot grasp, by experiment. At this point, the game is over, and it's time for you to go home.

As I said, it is now extremely clear where your mistakes are coming from. You know absolutely nothing about science, yet you act as though you do. You don't even know what inertia is, for crying out loud! Therefore, regarding your Truth Movement proclamations, there is no reason for anyone to listen to you.

I'm done with you unless you want to learn. In that case, we can help.

[WildCat]

This is a wildly inaccurate recount of the observable phenomena (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0).
It's exactly that. What do you think that video shows?
Kyle, you linked to that video. What do you think it shows?

[Justin39640]

(snipped for length)
Oh, my aching head.

-

This is a pretty good model for a WTC Tower collapse that plays exactly like NIST, Dr. Bazant, and Dr. Seffen all say it did. It has no explosives anywhere, nor any needed. It proves the theory that I've presented and that you cannot grasp, by experiment. At this point, the game is over, and it's time for you to go home.

As I said, it is now extremely clear where your mistakes are coming from. You know absolutely nothing about science, yet you act as though you do. You don't even know what inertia is, for crying out loud! Therefore, regarding your Truth Movement proclamations, there is no reason for anyone to listen to you.

I'm done with you unless you want to learn. In that case, we can help.

QhTiJEYqqY8

[Mr.D]

I never suggested he did, but rather am taking issue with the conceptualization he used to derive his equation. Again, the potential energy of the system in question is not relative to the whole of the mass of the tower suspended at the maximum height of the tower. Dividing that value by 3 does nothing to change that.


Dividing the height by 3 does nothing to change the height?

:jaw-dropp

ETA: That's it. I'm calling TROLL!

[triforcharity]

Or STUNDIE!!!!

[PixyMisa]

Your completely unsubstantiated denials demonstrate the lack of sold ground from which you argue. Again, it seems rather obvious at this point that you've just got your empty hand in your pocket, waving it around trying to pretend like you have something there.
Fail.

I'm not the one who thinks a cow is just like an ant, only bigger and goes moo.

[Hokulele]

Fail.

I'm not the one who thinks a cow is just like an ant, only bigger and goes moo.


"These cows are small. Those cows are far away. Small. Far away."

[Heiwa]

Sure, like if you stack 80 glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that; once it starts, it's all over, eh? Assuming 10mm glass with a 1 kg/mm/mm tensile strength spaced 500mm apart, and a 10 kg ball with a 200mm diameter given say 100m over the top of the structure just for fun, how close to free fall would expect that ball to get after connecting with the first sheet of glass?

This is an easy problem to solve!

We have 80 glass elements of certain mass, m, spaced 500 mm apart. How the spacing is arranged must be clarified; some sort of supports I assume, the bottom one, carrying 80 m, stronger than the top one, carrying nothing but expecting to be impacted by a bowling ball.

Inertia is the name for the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion, or an object at rest to remain at rest, unless acted upon by a force.

Thus, the tower of 80 glass elements/supports is at rest and the bowling ball comes dropping down in motion.

What happens at impact? Well, it depends on the strength of the top glass element and the bowling ball - the two elements in contact only! If the top element at rest is reinforced, armored glass and doesn't break, it will transmit forces on the supports below and on the bowling ball. The bowling ball may actually break or bounce or one or more supports below.

As we say: You have to start at the top to get things changed in a structure (or organisation).

In the example above, the 79 glass elements below the top one have not got a clue what the top glass element and bowling ball are up to, when they meet.

[PixyMisa]

Wrong.

[Hokulele]

Well, it depends on the strength of the top glass element and the bowling ball - the two elements in contact only!


So the connections between the glass and supports don't come into play at all?

Strange.

[Heiwa]

So the connections between the glass and supports don't come into play at all?

Strange.

Initial contact is between top glass element (let's call it A80) and bowling ball (C)! Not strange at all!

Let's assume that the bowling ball, C, is rigid and does not absorb any energy at impact, i.e. all kinetic energy, E, is applied to the top glass element, A80.

Let's now assume that A80 is broken and that exactly energy E is used for that!

What does it mean, apart from A80 being broken.

Well, it means that the motion of C, the bowling ball, has temporarily come to absolut rest (all kinetic energy applied by C has been used to break A80).

Of course, C will now start a new drop of 500 mm, and, if it misses the connections between A80 and A79, it will impact the next glass element below, A79, and apply its new kinetic energy there (due to a 500 mm drop).

And maybe now the glass element, A79, will not be broken ... and C bounces on A79!

Another possibility is that C is not rigid and thus absorbs some of the energy E at impact! How much energy (E) C and the assembly A1-A80 absorb depends on the structures of C and A.

C may have a defect and may crack into two pieces at impact with A80, etc, etc. Structural damage analysis of collisions between two structural assemblies is really a fascinating subject (that I have studied for 40+ years).

[Hokulele]

Let's assume that the bowling ball, C, is rigid and does not absorb any energy at impact, i.e. all kinetic energy, E, is applied to the top glass element, A80.

Let's now assume that A80 is broken and that exactly energy E is used for that!


So nothing is transferred to the connections between A80 and the supports?

Strange.

[Heiwa]

So nothing is transferred to the connections between A80 and the supports?

Strange.

Not really - the force F applied to the top glass element A80 at impact by C must pass through the glass element A80 to the supports via the connections. Evidently, immediately after impact that force F manages to pass A80 and is thus applied to the supports/connections, but when A80 breaks, the force F becomes 0 again, while C starts its new drop.

If the supports/connections are rigid, no energy is absorbed there - only in the top element A80 (and C, if not rigid).

As I say, it is quite simple. Just do the analysis, step by step, and you'll find out what happens and the problem is solved.

[Hokulele]

Not really ...


Ah, so this has nothing to do with the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Got it.

[Matthew Cline]

The videos with which you are not familiar describe a particular type of demolition, in which a single floor's worth of supports is suddenly destroyed through cables and hydraulics. This leaves an upper section to fall upon the lower portion, which is frequently much larger than the upper part. The entire structure is destroyed, despite no weakening at all being applied to the lower portion.

So, a gravity driven collapse where once the collapse starts it becomes unstoppable. Yet Google shows that no one has yet labeled verinage demolition as "psy-ops". C'mon, someone out there has to think that verinage demolition is trickery designed to fool the masses as to the true nature of 9/11.

[alienentity]

Oh good grief, Heiwa's attempting to hold court again. I almost prefer kylebisme.
But neither are very interesting. Being repetitive and resistant to comprehension, they're brilliant at.

[Architect]

I'm keeping out this thread if incomprehensible threader stupidy, as the rest of you are doing a far better job of debunking the OP crap. However I just wanted to remind the casual observer that our friend Heiwa, who claims to be an expert, lied about the causes of something as simple as the Ronan Point collapse and has failed to substantiate his position ever since. His opinion should be set at naught.

[GlennB]

The path of least resistance, in regard to matter, is directly related to Newton's third law. The difference between the law and the principle here is; an object in motion will always stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, while an mass will only follow the path of least resistance unless it exerts work to do otherwise.

Newton's Third Law is the "action and reaction" one.
You're thinking of Newton's First Law, I believe.

You really must stop your scientific bluffery.

[Leviath]

For instance, find yourself a nice grassy hill, lay down, and let yourself roll down it. Doing so, you will follow the path of least resistance
You need to think through your analogies better. If you start to roll down a hill and there is a bump in your path you will not magically go around it. What happens when you approach that bump will depend on your built-up momentum and the size and shape of the bump.

I am pretty sure you have been made aware of how important the concepts of momentum and/or inertia are to the WTC collapses.

[Mr.Herbert]

<snip>

As I say, it is quite simple. Just do the analysis, step by step, and you'll find out what happens and the problem is solved.

Translation:

FklDigwpcqc


Heiwa has indeed joined the Mothra Movement. Welcome aboard.

[TruthersLie]

Ah, yeah, they were mentioned to me in a PM by another member erlier as "the French demos", I simply wasn't familiar with the term "verinage". Anyway, the videos you posted do show an unsual form of controlled demolition, using cables to pull out supporting structure rather than explosives to blast it out. Furthermore, note how the velocity of the upper mass decreases after coming into contact with the lower mass, demonstrating the resistance provided by that lower mass. Also consider how much more the deceleration would have been had that lower structure been not simply concrete but rather also framed with steel.

ah... so now you are going to Tony S's missing jolt?

really?

that is highly amusing.

shift shift shift.

Do you know what else it shows? That Bazant was right, and BLGL fully explains what happened to the towers...

[Bad_Doggie]

Sure, like if you stack 80 glass coffee tables on top of each other and then drop a bowling ball on that; once it starts, it's all over, eh? Assuming 10mm glass with a 1 kg/mm/mm tensile strength spaced 500mm apart, and a 10 kg ball with a 200mm diameter given say 100m over the top of the structure just for fun, how close to free fall would expect that ball to get after connecting with the first sheet of glass?

I just love truther analogies; coffee tables, Pizzas boxes, cheese, trees and crushed cookies.

It’s like an 8 year old learning Physics in the kitchen. Wouldn’t it be nice if life was that easy?

Oh well coffee break over, gotta go work on my suspension system. Yeah I’m modelling it with spaghetti, anyone confident enough in that to by a new Merc????

Woof!

[Bad_Doggie]

Again, the path of lease resistance is a law in the physics of electricity, Ohm's law.

Now I’ve got coffee over the screen. I should’ve quit while I was ahead!!!

Woof!

[WildCat]

His opinion should be set at naught.
You were worried someone would take him seriously?

[rwguinn]

Oh, my aching head.

...



In my last reply, somewhat in jest, I referred you to the "integral sign" in my derivation. Apparently you really don't know what that means. The division by 3 is not at all arbitrary; it is, in fact, a pretty good representation of the actual Tower. Anyway, what we learn from this is that you cannot follow even a simple potential energy calculation, even when all the work is shown for you and dumbed down to a high school sophomore level.
You knew that going in, Ryan!
That did not take a rocket scientist to figure out, but luckily we have a couple of them available.


No. A Newton is a unit of force. Structural integrity is not equivalent to a force. As I said, the structural integrity is not a well defined quantity. How well a structure will perform under load is not an intrinsic property of the structure. You have to specify the conditions in much more detail. For instance, two forces that arrive at different angles may have dramatically different effects on the structure.

This is why my calculation does not attempt to gauge "structural integrity." Can't be done. Instead, I looked at energy absorption. And that, again, is what you asked for, even though you've run far away from that discussion ever since.
fixed that---From my experience, we don't define Structural integrity, except as a SF for worst case combined loads--then add 50% MUF






I cannot emphasize enough how nonsensical the above is.

"Interia" is not "elements of structural strength." Inertia is, depending on how you're looking at it, either mass or momentum. It has units of kilograms or Newton seconds, respectively. The WTC Towers have the same inertia before and after the collapse, although clearly the structural integrity before versus after is radically changed.
To be fair, "I" is referred to as Moment of Inertia, and strength is a function of "I", as in P*L3/(48*E*I)
However, the BS comes when half-educated (at best) troofers grab a partial name and use it as something else.
Moment of inertia /= inertia.



The point which you keep missing, for reasons that are now only too obvious, is that the timing of the "crush-down" style collapse is primarily governed by the mass of the structure and its contents. It is momentum transfer that slows the descent. The strength of the lower block also slows the descent, but not much, practically a round-off error. You could double the strength of the WTC Towers without changing the mass and hardly notice the difference.....

I'm done with you unless you want to learn. In that case, we can help.

Im joining you theree.
Everybody--please don't quote the guy, as that will force me not to read what you write!

[funk de fino]

Now I’ve got coffee over the screen. I should’ve quit while I was ahead!!!

Woof!


Me too. I could not believe someone just posted that.

What a major embarrassment.

[jaydeehess]

Ohm's law:

E=IR is simply an equation that says "the voltage is equal to the current times the resistance". It does not mention paths or renting property.

Indeed, through several years of post secondary schooling and 30 years of experience in the feild of electronics I have never heard the term "path of least resistance" used by my peers.

I understand implicitly that current will be higher in circuits of less resistance(given the same voltage supply) and I suppose one could, if one had some reason to do so, describe that as the electrons shunting to the path of least resistance.

However the analogy quickly breaks down given that in a complex piece of equipment several ciruits fed from the same power supply will have different curents than others. If the electrons were required to flow in the path of least resistance then current would be flowing in only one of those circuits.

It would suck for any parallel circuitry:D

[jaydeehess]

snaking cable and running det-cord go hand in hand right? lol

Cable snakes? You are thinking of gaffers and riggers.:D

[Justin39640]

Indeed, through several years of post secondary schooling and 30 years of experience in the feild of electronics I have never heard the term "path of least resistance" used by my peers.

I understand implicitly that current will be higher in circuits of less resistance(given the same voltage supply) and I suppose one could, if one had some reason to do so, describe that as the electrons shunting to the path of least resistance.

However the analogy quickly breaks down given that in a complex piece of equipment several ciruits fed from the same power supply will have different curents than others. If the electrons were required to flow in the path of least resistance then current would be flowing in only one of those circuits.

It would suck for any parallel circuitry:D

that term never really made sense to me when i thought about it in a complex way
i hated using it when i was trying to teach people at my old job (believe it or not, i was the head tech and trainer before i left lol) as i felt it could confuse them (which wasnt hard to do and hence my omega comment earlier) but you have to start somewhere lol

im a field tech (and owner now) and i work on a lot of 100% electric vehicles (forklifts, jacks, cushmans etc)
even though i cant engineer a circuit (well at least a very complex one)
understanding how it works is crucial to successful troubleshooting (and the downfall of many techs in my field)

i was tempted to post earlier:
"if that was a law of electricity your computer would never work"
but to most here thats pretty obvious lol

[jaydeehess]

This is an easy problem to solve!

We have 80 glass elements of certain mass, m, spaced 500 mm apart. How the spacing is arranged must be clarified; some sort of supports I assume, the bottom one, carrying 80 m, stronger than the top one, carrying nothing but expecting to be impacted by a bowling ball.

Inertia is the name for the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion, or an object at rest to remain at rest, unless acted upon by a force.

Thus, the tower of 80 glass elements/supports is at rest and the bowling ball comes dropping down in motion.

What happens at impact? Well, it depends on the strength of the top glass element and the bowling ball - the two elements in contact only! If the top element at rest is reinforced, armored glass and doesn't break, it will transmit forces on the supports below and on the bowling ball. The bowling ball may actually break or bounce or one or more supports below.

As we say: You have to start at the top to get things changed in a structure (or organisation).

In the example above, the 79 glass elements below the top one have not got a clue what the top glass element and bowling ball are up to, when they meet.

If this situation is supposed to be analogous to the WTC towers at all then it has to be the glass itself that supports the legs laterally. That is to say that the glass is connected directly to the legs which in turn keeps the legs vertical which in turn allows the structure to remain upright.

Let's assume that the legs are each a continuous column with welded on glass floor seats and bolts or rivets holding the glass to the seats.

The mass hitting the next glass 'floor' is increased by the mass of broken glass from the floors above it.

Will the floors eventually arrest the fall?

Not if the falling mass exceeds the load capacity of the glass and in the case of the towers the mass that was hitting the floors far exceeded even the static load that an individual floor was designed to hold. So in our analogy one would have a bowling ball of sufficient mass that even if it were simply and carefully placed on the glass 'floor' that 'floor' would crack and fail. Note that this is not to say that the legs would not be able to support such a mass. In fact the whole purpose of the legs is to take the mass loading of the entire structure above any height whereas the floors need only support the mass expected on any individual floorspace

Add in any dynamic loading at all, much less any additional mass loading of falling glass, and the collapse through the glass floors will acellerate, not decellerate.

As the floors break away in this analogy the legs will be increasingly long unbraced columns. They will bend due to their inherent instability and may actually buckle before the last 'floor' fails. At any rate they will fall over when the last 'floor' fails.

[Dave Rogers]

Let's just look at an example of a falling body taking the path of least resistance, shall we? I've used this one before, but I'd like to hear kylebisme's thoughts on it.

Put an egg on a horizontal slab of concrete. Suspend a brick a foot above the egg. Now, it's fairly obvious, isn't it, that the path of least resistance is through the air around the egg, and the path of most resistance requires the brick to crush the egg?

Now drop the brick. It didn't take the path of least resistance, did it?

You may argue that there was nothing to move the brick sideways, so it couldn't possibly miss the egg. That's exactly the point. Falling objects do not seek out the path of least resistance, as this simple experiment clearly demonstrates. They accelerate in response to the forces exerted on them, and if there is no force that can accelerate them towards some hypothetical path of least resistance, they do not take that path.

In this context, and in that of the collapse of the Twin Towers, "path of least resistance" is an irrelevant concept.

Dave

[Heiwa]

If this situation is supposed to be analogous to the WTC towers at all then it has to be the glass itself that supports the legs laterally. That is to say that the glass is connected directly to the legs which in turn keeps the legs vertical which in turn allows the structure to remain upright.

Let's assume that the legs are each a continuous column with welded on glass floor seats and bolts or rivets holding the glass to the seats.

The mass hitting the next glass 'floor' is increased by the mass of broken glass from the floors above it.

Will the floors eventually arrest the fall?

Not if the falling mass exceeds the load capacity of the glass and in the case of the towers the mass that was hitting the floors far exceeded even the static load that an individual floor was designed to hold. So in our analogy one would have a bowling ball of sufficient mass that even if it were simply and carefully placed on the glass 'floor' that 'floor' would crack and fail. Note that this is not to say that the legs would not be able to support such a mass. In fact the whole purpose of the legs is to take the mass loading of the entire structure above any height whereas the floors need only support the mass expected on any individual floorspace

Add in any dynamic loading at all, much less any additional mass loading of falling glass, and the collapse through the glass floors will acellerate, not decellerate.

As the floors break away in this analogy the legs will be increasingly long unbraced columns. They will bend due to their inherent instability and may actually buckle before the last 'floor' fails. At any rate they will fall over when the last 'floor' fails.

The damage analysis problem was a bowling ball C contacting the glass top (A80) of a table on top of 79 other glass top tables (A1-A79). It looks similar to the WTC 2 destruction.

Question is what happens, when C impacts A80 glass top.

One possibility is that C breaks glass top A80, which requires energy to be established (C loses speed = decelerate), and that C then continues to try to break glass top A79 (C loses speed again, etc, etc). Broken pieces of A80 may assist C in this venture.

Another possibility is that (reinforced, strong) glass top A80 breaks C! A80 arrests C.

A third possibility is that neither glass top A80 nor C break (they only suffer local deformation) and the result will then be that C bounces on A80 (assisted by ground and A1-A79) and then stops on A80 after some more bounces. Again A80 + structure/tables below arrest C.

So it seems there are two possibilites of A80 arresting C and only one possibility that C breaks A80.

NIST has evidently not investigated the former possibilites, when they study the WTC destructions, so its analysis is incomplete, to say the least.

I am amazed that NIST does not know how to do proper structural damage analysis.

[stateofgrace]

I am amazed that NIST does not know how to do proper structural damage analysis.

What is amazing is that a lying fraud honestly thinks he is in position to criticize anybody.

The same lying fraud who runs from threads and the same lying fraud who makes wild claims and runs away like a little child when called out on them.

You are not in any position of authority to criticize nor have you any moral high ground to do so, fraud.

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by kylebisme
Ah, yeah, they were mentioned to me in a PM by another member erlier as "the French demos", I simply wasn't familiar with the term "verinage". Anyway, the videos you posted do show an unsual form of controlled demolition, using cables to pull out supporting structure rather than explosives to blast it out. Furthermore, note how the velocity of the upper mass decreases after coming into contact with the lower mass, demonstrating the resistance provided by that lower mass. Also consider how much more the deceleration would have been had that lower structure been not simply concrete but rather also framed with steel.

ah... so now you are going to Tony S's missing jolt?

really?

that is highly amusing.

shift shift shift.

Do you know what else it shows? That Bazant was right, and BLGL fully explains what happened to the towers...

The verinage demos seen are of concrete load bearing walls and thick reinforced concrete floor structures, not post-and-beam columns with weak floor topping structures. When the upper two stories are pushed sideways the floors fall onto the undisturbed relatively large load bearing area concrete walls and floors below, thereby the "jolt".

The exterior columns of the TTs were buckled inward and the columns of the 10-23 upper stories fell eccentrically onto the fire damaged 4", 2.5" at the pan ribs lightweight concrete floor below, not axially onto the columns below.

The thin damaged floors could not meaningfully arrest the columns of the upper 10-23 stories from crushing the floors below, therefore no "jolt".

Tony S's hypothesis of the "missing jolt" corroborates the recorded visual facts seen of a gravity only driven collapse.

[Heiwa]

What is amazing is that a lying fraud honestly thinks he is in position to criticize anybody.

The same lying fraud who runs from threads and the same lying fraud who makes wild claims and runs away like a little child when called out on them.

You are not in any position of authority to criticize nor have you any moral high ground to do so, fraud.

LOL.

I just outline the basics of structural damage analyzis. It seems the real lying frauds are at NIST!

[stateofgrace]

LOL.

I just outline the basics of structural damage analyzis. It seems the real lying frauds are at NIST!

Stop lying; you have never produced any structural analysis worth anything. Simply repeating over and over again one lemon cannot crush nine other lemons or one Lego block cannot crush nine others is not structural analysis, my nine year daughter figured that one out, genius. YOU have to show the exact relationship between all the support elements within the WTCs and proof by maths how each element reacts and stops the collapse.

And NIST are not accountable to an insignificant fraud like you.

Also start backing up your unwarranted bravo and get your fraudulent butt over to the threads that you are avoiding and prove me wrong. You know the ones.

[jaydeehess]

The damage analysis problem was a bowling ball C contacting the glass top (A80) of a table on top of 79 other glass top tables (A1-A79). It looks similar to the WTC 2 destruction.

then you go on as if that was not the problem that was to be investigated. Why is that?

Question is what happens, when C impacts A80 glass top.

One possibility is that C breaks glass top A80, which requires energy to be established (C loses speed = decelerate), and that C then continues to try to break glass top A79 (C loses speed again, etc, etc). Broken pieces of A80 may assist C in this venture.

Another possibility is that (reinforced, strong) glass top A80 breaks C! A80 arrests C.

A third possibility is that neither glass top A80 nor C break (they only suffer local deformation) and the result will then be that C bounces on A80 (assisted by ground and A1-A79) and then stops on A80 after some more bounces. Again A80 + structure/tables below arrest C.

So it seems there are two possibilites of A80 arresting C and only one possibility that C breaks A80.

Once again then if the dropping mass on the glass floor would be sufficient to break the glas even if it were simply and carefully placed on the glass then there is no need to investigate further. Given that this was the case in the WTC towers it would be rather a useless expense to go any further along that line.

NIST has evidently not investigated the former possibilites, when they study the WTC destructions, so its analysis is incomplete, to say the least.

I am amazed that NIST does not know how to do proper structural damage analysis.

I, and so many others, are amazed that you simply are utterly incapable of admitting that a floor could not support anything close to the mass that was impacting them in the collapses let alone the dynamic and chaotic loading involved.

You have completely ignored my previous post while pretending to have addressed it. Interesting.

[jaydeehess]

One possibility is that C breaks glass top A80, which requires energy to be established (C loses speed = decelerate), and that C then continues to try to break glass top A79 (C loses speed again, etc, etc). Broken pieces of A80 may assist C in this venture.

BTW H, you forgot to account for the increase in velocity between floor hits.

[Heiwa]

Once again then if the dropping mass on the glass floor would be sufficient to break the glas even if it were simply and carefully placed on the glass then there is no need to investigate further. Given that this was the case in the WTC towers it would be rather a useless expense to go any further along that line.



It is the energy applied by the dropping mass that may break the glass. If the glass breaks, energy has been used, and one result is that the dropping mass decelerates (it has lost kinetic energy).
Then there is real need to investigate further, e.g. how much energy was used to break the glass, how much energy is still avalable to break further glass, etc.
With regard to WTC 1 the dropping mass, let's call it C, could only apply say 1.2 GJ of energy at impact with mass at rest, let's call it A, and as C and A are virtually identical structures at contact interface (no bowling ball C contacting glass A), the energy is applied 50/50 to A and C ... and the energy will start deforming elements in both C and A, which may cause some elements in C and A to break. Evidently the weaker elements break first in contact with stronger elements, e.g. columns will break floors, and then energy applied is transformed into heat.
And that's what should have happened with WTC 1 - only the bottom floor of C and the top floor of A would get damaged.
But as you need much more than 1.2GJ to damage these floors, the destruction due to a drop would stop at once!! Only local failures to the two floors in contact (and adjacent columns) would take place.

Evidently you do not see that on videos of the 911 WTC destructions. First you see upper mass C being blown apart (only debris of C is then falling) and then lower mass A is blown apart, step by step, from top down creating a fountain of debris, concrete dust (the floors are blown apart), big perimeter wall panel sections 10 floors high are blown away sideways, and smoke.

Sorry, dropping little C on big A cannot possibly create such a destruction! So the WTC 911 destructions are some sort of controlled demolitions using energy other than that of gravity acting on dropping mass(es).