A Truther writes...

[angrysoba]

Someone on another forum is very pleased with themselves at having come up with a fool-proof demolition of the "official story" and believe that it is refuted by applying the conservation of momentum. They also link to some execrable page from the execrable "What Really Happened" website. But does anyone feel like giving a concise reason for why the conservation of momentum argument is wrong or misapplied here? (I'm not an engineer!)

Perhaps the key point to the entire implausibility of the 'pancake collapse' theory is considering a very old law - conservation of momentum.
Conservation of momentum comes from Newton's first law. A body will remain at rest or travel in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by another force.
Consider the initial collapse of the top sections, which in each case would have the lightest top portion of the building, being the thinnest part of the core. We are expected to believe that as it suddenly (with a flash) lost all its structure and fell onto the floor below, the combined weight of the section above the disintegrated floor lands on the floor below. That causes the floor below to collapse under the strain, and the entire new mass falls onto the next floor. This progression continues neatly all the way down.
That's fine, apart from one very important detail - how does each new floor suddenly assume the accumulated velocity of the falling floors above? We're talking about a progressively heavy core structure (it having been built to bear the weight of the entire structure above, at each stage). So why did it not _substantially_ arrest the downward motion?
As Frank Verismo points out, a great deal of the mass was pulverised in any case, so the full weight of the above sections were dispersed each time a new floor was reached by the downward progression.
How did the really heavy mid to lower sections suddenly start moving at the same pace as the falling upper sections, unless they were offering _virtually no resistance at all_ - unless they were already falling themselves immediately before the progression hit them.
The towers did not come down quite at free-fall speed, but it was not far off it. It was way too close to free-fall acceleration to believe even for a moment than a substantial structure of increasing strength was being crushed by the powdered remains of the floors above.
*
If the motion was entirely downwards, with no other force than downward gravity operating after collapse was initiated, why do we see massive steel girders ejected out laterally for hundreds of feet? Why did tiny body parts (sections of finger, etc.) appear on rooftops hundreds of yards away?
In standard building collapses, one would find at least a few things intact. A chair, a monitor, something. How come the biggest items found were fragments of telephone keypads?
Look at the column on the last picture on this page: How did it acquire that precise cut, consistent with a controlled demolition?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm
*
But back to conservation of momentum. Inertia dictates that a mass will not suddenly assume the velocity of the moving object falling onto it, even if it is so tenuously structured that a feather falling onto it would initiate its collapse. In this case, we are talking about an increasing substantial structure the further down the building we go. Yet it offered little more resistance than fresh air on the day of 9/11.

[BNRT]

I think he forgot there already is a force acting on the floors all the time. It's called gravity.

[T.A.M.]

What a *********** idiot.

TAM:)

[Seymour Butz]

2 points.

1- he accepts that stuff falling on the floors will break them up, and then asks how the falling mass destroys the columns. This line of thinking is as odds. Once he admits that stuff falls on the floors, then the strength of the columns is NOT the determining factor. the strength of the floors and their connections are, Whather or not core columns fail depends on the bracing they have AFTER the debris passes through, and any rational mind will admit that the core floors/bracing will be destroyed as well by the debris.

2- he also mentions something about the floors being broken up before the debris hits it. Well, Bazant describes this very thing as likely to have happened by air pressure from the descending debris cracking apart the concrete SLIGHTLY AHEAD OF the debris impacts.

[16.5]

"Look at the column on the last picture on this page: How did it acquire that precise cut, consistent with a controlled demolition?"

Welcome to 2005!

Gee an angle cut column is "Consistent with controlled demolition"??? Jesus, who are they kidding?

My suggestion is that you link to verinage demolition videos and tell the knucklehead to STFU and GBTW.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbpgxr_demolition-tours-pres-saint-jean-vu_news

[W.D.Clinger]

But does anyone feel like giving a concise reason for why the conservation of momentum argument is wrong or misapplied here? (I'm not an engineer!)

What a *********** idiot.

TAM:)
TAM's response is accurate and concise.

Here are a few supporting details. All quotations are from the Truther quoted in the original post.

That's fine, apart from one very important detail - how does each new floor suddenly assume the accumulated velocity of the falling floors above? We're talking about a progressively heavy core structure (it having been built to bear the weight of the entire structure above, at each stage). So why did it not _substantially_ arrest the downward motion?
When an upper section consisting of 12 floors collides inelastically with the floor below, the loss of velocity due to conservation of momentum is about 1/13 of the upper section's velocity just before the collision. You aren't likely to see that with the naked eye.

Gravity continues to accelerate the upper section through the collision, so poor video analysis doesn't always show it either. Competent video analysis shows diminutions of velocity considerably in excess of what is predicted by conservation of momentum. In other words, the effect predicted by conservation of momentum was small relative to the reduction in velocity caused by the supporting strength that remained within the compromised structure below.

As the collapse progresses, the falling mass grows larger. That means the diminution of velocity attributable to conservation of momentum, which was already less than 10% for the first collision, becomes even less noticeable in subsequent collisions.


The towers did not come down quite at free-fall speed, but it was not far off it.
The average downward acceleration was about two-thirds the acceleration of gravity.


But back to conservation of momentum. Inertia dictates that a mass will not suddenly assume the velocity of the moving object falling onto it, even if it is so tenuously structured that a feather falling onto it would initiate its collapse. In this case, we are talking about an increasing substantial structure the further down the building we go. Yet it offered little more resistance than fresh air on the day of 9/11.

Fresh air does not reduce the acceleration of gravity by one-third.

[Thunder]

A truther says what?

[bill smith]

Someone on another forum is very pleased with themselves at having come up with a fool-proof demolition of the "official story" and believe that it is refuted by applying the conservation of momentum. They also link to some execrable page from the execrable "What Really Happened" website. But does anyone feel like giving a concise reason for why the conservation of momentum argument is wrong or misapplied here? (I'm not an engineer!)

'' How did the really heavy mid to lower sections suddenly start moving at the same pace as the falling upper sections, unless they were offering _virtually no resistance at all....''

Well put. I hope Heiwa reads it. It would play well for him..

[Edx]

lol he promotes the thermal lance cut column picture as evidence of thermite lol.

[Oystein]

...We are expected to believe that as it suddenly (with a flash) lost all its structure and fell onto the floor below, ...

It doesn't matter at all if the top section above the burning floors lost all their support in a flash or somewhat gradually. All that matters is that a cross-section of the tower crashed (columns/joints buckling and breaking) and the top section picking up some speed as it is accelerated by gravity.


...how does each new floor suddenly assume the accumulated velocity of the falling floors above?

Strawman. It doesn not assume the speed, it assumes the momentum, thereby losing some speed (as some of the mass starts out at rest)


We're talking about a progressively heavy core structure (it having been built to bear the weight of the entire structure above, at each stage). So why did it not _substantially_ arrest the downward motion?

As lower stories became progressively heavy (and strong), so did the weight and the speed of the already falling top part accumulate. So while the static strength of the lower stories increased basically in a linear function, the momentum of the fall increased basically with a function that contains a power of 2 - momentum increased faster than resisting static force.


As Frank Verismo points out, a great deal of the mass was pulverised in any case, so the full weight of the above sections were dispersed each time a new floor was reached by the downward progression.

When we are looking at conservation of momentum, it doesn't matter if the mass you want to arrest is already pulverized or still structurally intact. If you want to arrest the collapse, you need to arrest the downward momentum of all the masses involved, as it wouldn't do much good to stop the intact parts and let the pulverized parts keep falling (all the way).


How did the really heavy mid to lower sections suddenly start moving at the same pace as the falling upper sections, unless they were offering _virtually no resistance at all_ - unless they were already falling themselves immediately before the progression hit them.

Because the dynamic load of n upper stories at velovity v with mass m is magnitudes greater than the static load these mid to lower sections were designed to carry. They were designed to excert the upward force of several (3-5?) times the weight of all the floors above, but to arrest these floors within the short distance that the columns still remain elastic would require a force much more than 10 times the weight.


The towers did not come down quite at free-fall speed, but it was not far off it. It was way too close to free-fall acceleration to believe even for a moment than a substantial structure of increasing strength was being crushed by the powdered remains of the floors above.

Towers came down around 2/3rds of free fall speed which actually is a considerable distance off.
Plus Argument from incredulity.


If the motion was entirely downwards, with no other force than downward gravity operating after collapse was initiated, why do we see massive steel girders ejected out laterally for hundreds of feet? Why did tiny body parts (sections of finger, etc.) appear on rooftops hundreds of yards away?

Drop a paper bag full with assorted things (screws, tomatoes, marbles, toys) from your upper floor down onto your terrace. Watch what happens. See how some of the things are flung sideways?


In standard building collapses, one would find at least a few things intact. A chair, a monitor, something. How come the biggest items found were fragments of telephone keypads?

Twin Towers were non-standard building collapses. They were just so very much bigger than anything we've seen so far. Potential energy of one tower, just standing erect, equals that of a formidable nuke. That is as much "standard building collapse" as Hiroshima was "standard bombing".


Look at the column on the last picture on this page: How did it acquire that precise cut, consistent with a controlled demolition?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm

As has been pointed out before: Welcome to the dark ages of trutherism.


But back to conservation of momentum. Inertia dictates that a mass will not suddenly assume the velocity of the moving object falling onto it, even if it is so tenuously structured that a feather falling onto it would initiate its collapse. In this case, we are talking about an increasing substantial structure the further down the building we go. Yet it offered little more resistance than fresh air on the day of 9/11.

Increasing substantial structure met even faster increasing momentum the further down the building we go.

[Bell]

'' How did the really heavy mid to lower sections suddenly start moving at the same pace as the falling upper sections, unless they were offering _virtually no resistance at all....''

Well put. I hope Heiwa reads it. It would play well for him..

Just to make sure we are on the same pace here.
The WTC towers were constructed with these flimsy floors:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11696474df7b2e709f.jpg

I have no idea how those flimsy floors could stop a falling block like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11696474df7bfd686f.jpg

Do you have any idea? Maybe Heiwa knows?
After all he is a naval architect and marine engineer.

[bill smith]

Just to make sure we are on the same pace here.
The WTC towers were constructed with these flimsy floors:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11696474df7b2e709f.jpg

I have no idea how those flimsy floors could stop a falling block like this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11696474df7bfd686f.jpg

Do you have any idea? Maybe Heiwa knows?
After all he is a naval architect and marine engineer.

...and don't forget that he is a formidable structural damage analyst..

[Bell]

...and don't forget that he a formidable structural damage analyst..

... of shipwrecks. You are not even trying are you? :rolleyes:

[bill smith]

... of shipwrecks. You are not even trying are you? :rolleyes:

Not at the moment. You will know when I am..

[Bell]

Not at the moment. You will know when I am..

Cool!

[bill smith]

Cool!

Thank you.

[dafydd]

... of shipwrecks. You are not even trying are you? :rolleyes:

No,Bill has lost the trolling touch.Telltale Tom is at number one at the moment.

[jhunter1163]

I'm trying to figure out what 11-letter bad word TAM used.

*thinking*

*thinking*

*thinking*

Oh, OK. Got it.

[T.A.M.]

*********** idiot

How many letters now?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

The autosensor puts in more * then are needed. The curse word I used above, and in the original post, was only 7 letters long.

TAM:)

[Bell]

No,Bill has lost the trolling touch.Telltale Tom is at number one at the moment.

Tom is not a troll. Imho.

[Dog Town]

Tom is not a troll. Imho.

Right! Parody is the word people are looking for. I know it's hard to tell, parodies of twoof, considering the original content. TT has a great wit.

[T.A.M.]

TT is so dry I sometimes forget he is a parody, and lash out at his "stupidity".

TAM:)

[angrysoba]

Thanks very much for the replies, especially for Oystein's point-by-point rebuttal. I think that the two main problems are that 1) I don't know anything about engineering or how the structure could have fallen down and 2) neither does my opponent.

I prefer to ask

a) What would be the point in demolishing the Towers in the first place? It would serve no purpose whatsoever except to tip off structural engineers such as David Ray Griffin that something weird was going on.

b) If they were demolished by controlled demolition there would have been sounds of explosions - there were not - and other phenomenon consistent with explosive force that the Truther says flung steel beams hundreds of feet out laterally. How far, for example, would the glass be flung out?

But the Truther in question is so adamant that they have exposed the "official story" as a lie that they don't feel the need to offer any alternative scenarios.

[Oystein]

Thanks very much for the replies, especially for Oystein's point-by-point rebuttal. I think that the two main problems are that 1) I don't know anything about engineering or how the structure could have fallen down and 2) neither does my opponent.

I am not an engineer of any kind, and whatever I write about engineering is basically what I picked up from real engineers (some of them here at JREF), or what I would consider a good measure of common education.

However, the "Truther" you are dealing with purports to base his argument on specifically the "conversation of momentum", a basic physical law. You can argue on that ground without going too much into actual engineering, as all engineering is ultimately subject to physical laws.

I once came up with my own little one-dimensional collapse model, using old-fashioned paper and pencil, and the physics I learned in high school. I made some assumptions about the properties of structural elements that were surely naive and uneducated, but made them such that I was sure to err on the side that would make total collapse less, not more, likely.
My result was, that collapse would progress at an acceleration of about half G, thus a little slower than it did; which is no doubt due to my assumptions being unrealistically conservative.

Here is a rough ouline of my model:

Assumptions:

I modelled a tower as a stack of 110 columns, each 3.5 meters high.
Each column (=story) would have a mass of unspecified dimension, with the top column having a mass of 1.
Each column would have to be able to support the 3 times weight of all columns above it. Accordingly, the mass of columns would increase top to bottom.
I assumed that a column could support the full 3 times weight of all stories bove it even if compressed or bent, until it is shortened by 10%. At that point, the column would break and offer 0 resistance. "Support the full 3 times weight" means "excert a an upward force 3 times the gravity of the static load".
Only the column immediately touched by the falling top block would bear the full dynamic load; no wave propagation to stories below
Collapse initiation would be such a failure event: a story that had already sagged by 10% of its weight breaks and falls freely the remaining 90% of story height.
g=10 m/s2


Equations needed:

mass of falling top block above story N: m(N) = sumn=N+1..110(mn), where mn is the mass of the n-th column or story
Force of gravity: G = m*g
Upward force of intact columns: Ac = -3*G = -3*m*g
Deceleration of falling top part by upward force: delta-v = Ac * delta-t
Conversation of momentum: m(N) * v(N) = (m(N) + mN) * v(N-1)


What happens story by story is this:
1. The combined weight of stories N+1...110 falls freely a height of 90% of 3.5m = 3.15m and gains speed according to delta-v = g * delta-t
2. The block impacts (collides inelastically with) story N. As the mass of the top section always greately exceeds the mass of the single story below, the downward velocity is reduced by a few percent only
3. The impacted column now excerts an upward force to the falling block; since at the same time, gravity is still pulling downwards, that deceleration has a value of only 2g. Deceleration takes place for a vertical distance of 10% of story height, or 0.35m, which means columns get elastically compressed or bent.
4. If downward velocity reached 0 before the 10% are expended, the fall is arrested. This never happens. Instead, colum will break at this point. Goto 1.

It turns out that v increases by the same amount from story to story. In other words: We have a constant average acceleration downwards. With my assumptions, that average was slighly below 0.5*g. It would decrease if you assume a safety margin greater than 3* static load (a factor of 5 could be equally reasonable), it increases if you assume that columns (or their joints) break sooner than I assumed (in fact, I am sure that I was very generous here).


I prefer to ask

a) What would be the point in demolishing the Towers in the first place? It would serve no purpose whatsoever except to tip off structural engineers such as David Ray Griffin that something weird was going on.

Hey, but think at the sinister laughs that can be had whilst devising such fiendish plans! :cool:
I hope you are being sarcastic about Dave the Builder?? :eye-poppi

b) If they were demolished by controlled demolition there would have been sounds of explosions - there were not - and other phenomenon consistent with explosive force that the Truther says flung steel beams hundreds of feet out laterally. How far, for example, would the glass be flung out?

uhm... if forces and momentum are available to fling large things laterally, the same forces and momentum would be available to fling small pieces, no matter what the source of the force and momentum, not? I am pretty sure that lots of glass and other small pieces were flung out even farther than the steel beams. In fact, lots of lower Manhattan was littered with small things (dust...), only small portions with big things.


But the Truther in question is so adamant that they have exposed the "official story" as a lie that they don't feel the need to offer any alternative scenarios.

JAQing off, aren't they ;)

[angrysoba]

uhm... if forces and momentum are available to fling large things laterally, the same forces and momentum would be available to fling small pieces, no matter what the source of the force and momentum, not? I am pretty sure that lots of glass and other small pieces were flung out even farther than the steel beams. In fact, lots of lower Manhattan was littered with small things (dust...), only small portions with big things.


Good point. I think, however, that the glass would have scattered far wider if the columns on every floor had been blown out with explosives given that the forces and momentum would have originated from a different place than the force of a top-down collapse.

I hope you are being sarcastic about Dave the Builder??

Are you saying retired theologians aren't the best authorities on structural engineering?!!??!?!?!??!:jaw-dropp

Thanks also for the model of the collapse you sketched out as well.

[Oystein]

Good point. I think, however, that the glass would have scattered far wider if the columns on every floor had been blown out with explosives given that the forces and momentum would have originated from a different place than the force of a top-down collapse.

Well maybe, but that is merely what you can imagine, and might stand against what others maybe can't imagine

Are you saying retired theologians aren't the best authorities on structural engineering?!!??!?!?!??!:jaw-dropp

Why yes, they take it directly from God, the Supreme Structural Engineer of the Universe :p :duck:

Thanks also for the model of the collapse you sketched out as well.

My model is pretty bad compared with what's out there. I just wanted to point out that everybody with a basic understanding of mechanics (ETA: the branch of physics) can get down to work with the roughest of assumptions and come up with a basic understanding of the dynamics involved.

In the same vein, I did a very simple experiment:
I took a bundle of drinking straws, cut them to about 10cm to give them a little more strength per cm, put them upright on my table top, and carefully rested my hands on them. Then I removed straw by straw until there wer so few left that they could not support my hand and snapped. Turned out, at least 3 straws were required to statically support my hand.

Then I took 3 times that number: 9 straws. Bundled them. Put them upright. And let my hand freely drop on to them from a height of about 20cm

Turns out, all 9 instantly snap and can't support the now dynamic load of my hand.

Simple experiment, but very instructive to the layman's intuition.

[angrysoba]

Thanks again. Also, how about the amount of mass that was lost from it spilling down the sides of the buildings?

I realize that to some extent this shows that the remaining building was resisting far more than thin air (unlike the claim being made) as it obviously wasn't going straight down.

But doesn't this skew the calculations regarding how much downward momentum there was?

[Oystein]

Thanks again. Also, how about the amount of mass that was lost from it spilling down the sides of the buildings?

I realize that to some extent this shows that the remaining building was resisting far more than thin air (unlike the claim being made) as it obviously wasn't going straight down.

But doesn't this skew the calculations regarding how much downward momentum there was?

Hmm obviously, as anything that falls outside of the footprint would not impact any intact portions of the building. How much fell outside of the footprint? Hard to guess. Probably less than half of the mass (until it all piled up in a heap on the ground and much spilled sideways from there).
Calculations show that momentum and energy available exceeded maximum design load by a magnitude or more. If you deduct half the mass, you only deduct half the momentum and half the energy, and still remain well above design limits.


More importantly, if your truther is one of the many who argue that the towers fell onto their own footprint and that because of this the case for controlled demolition is strengthened, you need to point out that they can't have it both ways: They can then not claim at the same time that a significant portion of the towers' masses fell outside of the footprint.

[angrysoba]

More importantly, if your truther is one of the many who argue that the towers fell onto their own footprint and that because of this the case for controlled demolition is strengthened, you need to point out that they can't have it both ways: They can then not claim at the same time that a significant portion of the towers' masses fell outside of the footprint.

Ah, yes. I did notice that.

Although it isn't so much "a truther" as a whole nest. The thread has been going for months but participation has now thinned out.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post.html

[16.5]

Ah, yes. I did notice that.

Although it isn't so much "a truther" as a whole nest. The thread has been going for months but participation has now thinned out.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/the_911_post.html

Angrysoba, I had missed the fact that you were one of the truthers in that truther nest.

Ah.

Did you take the time to review the verinage video I linked above? According to your truther friend, that should not have worked. You will also note that a substantial portion of the structure (the facade) "spilled down the side of the building."

[angrysoba]

Angrysoba, I had missed the fact that you were one of the truthers in that truther nest.

Ah.

Did you take the time to review the verinage video I linked above? According to your truther friend, that should not have worked. You will also note that a substantial portion of the structure (the facade) "spilled down the side of the building."

Truther? No, not me. As you would be able to see if you read any of my comments there.

I have seen the verinage demolitions before and in fact posted videos of them over there. Of course there was plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth and insistence that it didn't apply to the Twin Towers collapses for various reasons. Regarding the conservation of momentum they argued that in the verinage demolitions there was a considerable visible slowdown in each whereas there wasn't for the towers.

They're just too fond of their little world of denial.

[CORed]

I think he forgot there already is a force acting on the floors all the time. It's called gravity.

Truthers seelm to have a lot of difficulty with advanced physics concepts like gravity and thermal expansion.

[CORed]

As Frank Verismo points out, a great deal of the mass was pulverised in any case, so the full weight of the above sections were dispersed each time a new floor was reached by the downward progression.

Yes, when you break something into pieces, its mass disappears. That's why avalanches and rockslides never snap large tree trunks or knock down buildings.

If you want to use physics to try to debunk the "official story", it helps if you're not completely ignorant of physics.

[bill smith]

Thanks again. Also, how about the amount of mass that was lost from it spilling down the sides of the buildings?

I realize that to some extent this shows that the remaining building was resisting far more than thin air (unlike the claim being made) as it obviously wasn't going straight down.

But doesn't this skew the calculations regarding how much downward momentum there was?

Here's another model

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core columns spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 12'' onto the lower 90% (A).

Will the top 10% (C) crush the lower 90% (A) right down flat on the ground ?

That is what happened at the WTC on 9/11 for the first time on the recorded history of the Planet Earth and not only once but twice in an hour.

[angrysoba]

Here's another model

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 12'' onto the lower 90% (A).

Will the top 10% (C) crush the lower 90% (A) right down flat on the ground ?

That is what happened at the WTC on 9/11 for the first time on the recorded history of the Planet Earth and not only once but twice in an hour.

This one's better Bill:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ub20K-o0cio/Sxz5_uY4OuI/AAAAAAAAADM/w9gLVk5vfCs/s400/GageWithBoxes.jpg

Some Truthers I know are incensed when that picture is shown, "OoooOOoooh! You're making Gage look stupid!" They howl!

No, Gage makes Gage look stupid. And he keeps doing it.

[bill smith]

Here's another model

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core columns spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 12'' onto the lower 90% (A).

Will the top 10% (C) crush the lower 90% (A) right down flat on the ground ?

That is what happened at the WTC on 9/11 for the first time on the recorded history of the Planet Earth and not only once but twice in an hour.


It seems crazy to contemplate that the top 10% of anything, large or small can crush the lower and stronger-built 90% of the same structure down to the ground by gravity alone. There is however a very good reason for thinking that. Because it IS totally cazy to contemplate ..

[16.5]

Truther? No, not me. As you would be able to see if you read any of my comments there.

I have seen the verinage demolitions before and in fact posted videos of them over there. Of course there was plenty of wailing and gnashing of teeth and insistence that it didn't apply to the Twin Towers collapses for various reasons. Regarding the conservation of momentum they argued that in the verinage demolitions there was a considerable visible slowdown in each whereas there wasn't for the towers.

They're just too fond of their little world of denial.

Am I reading that web site wrong?

"Posted by: angrysoba at January 28, 2010 7:36 AM
No matter whether the buildings were properly constructed or not, the undisputed facts are that all three buildings collapsed in freefall time. Unless Newtonian physics were suspended in NY on 9/11, that implies that all of the potential energy the buildings possessed by virtue of their height had to be converted to kinetic energy to make it to the ground in the time they did. No further energy would be left to collapse the building and break the joints. It is impossible for the buildins to have collapsed of their own accord, particularly as the path was that of the greatest resistance."

Wow, that site is insanely misleading, I can't tell whether you wrote that or not.

But no matter, tell your friends that whether or not the "slowdown" in the towers was "visible" the fact is that the collapse was not in free fall or even close.

It is a damn good thing that physics is not limited to what is visible to the naked eye on crappy you tube videos.

[DGM]

It seems crazy to contemplate that the top 10% of anything, large or small can crush the lower and stronger-built 90% of the same structure down to the ground by gravity alone. There is however a very good reason for thinking that. Because it IS totally cazy to contemplate ..
The problem is the top 10% did not crush the bottom 90%. This is propaganda promoted by the "truth" movement. The top 10% crushed 1% of the bottom 100%. Do you know what the difference is? After that the 1% is added to the top 10% so it can work on the next 1% of the bottom 100%. (numbers simplified)

[bill smith]

The problem is the top 10% did not crush the bottom 90%. This is propaganda promoted by the "truth" movement. The top 10% crushed 1% of the bottom 100%. Do you know what the difference is? After that the 1% is added to the top 10% so it can work on the next 1% of the bottom 100%. (numbers simplified)

If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet

[DGM]

If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet
Show me where 10% actually crushed 90%.

[bill smith]

This one's better Bill:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ub20K-o0cio/Sxz5_uY4OuI/AAAAAAAAADM/w9gLVk5vfCs/s400/GageWithBoxes.jpg

Some Truthers I know are incensed when that picture is shown, "OoooOOoooh! You're making Gage look stupid!" They howl!

No, Gage makes Gage look stupid. And he keeps doing it.

You should explain what Richard Gage is demonstrating in the picture. Can you do that ?

[bill smith]

Show me where 10% actually crushed 90%.

Readers...I take it that you have your eye on DGM by now ?

[Oystein]

If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet

Domino Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_Day).

There, the fall of 1 domino stone resulted in the falling of 4,491,863 domino stones. By gravity alone.

Such domino cascades typically work just fine even if you gradually increase size and mass of the stones.
If set up right, a domino stone could in theory eventually topple structures the size of the twin towers.

[Bell]

If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet

You are putting it like the top crushed the whole building all at one moment. In reality the top ~15 floors in WTC1 and ~30 in WTC2 crushed 1 floor. Then ~15 + 1 floors crushed another 1 floor and so on and so on.

[DGM]

Readers...I take it that you have your eye on DGM by now ?
What the "readers" have noticed is that you choose to ignore that as the top 10% was falling it picked up parts of the bottom 90%. These parts are now added to the top 10%. Gravity's funny like that.


Why do you ignore what's added as the top 10% falls?


"Reader" are waiting for your answer!

[Dog Town]

Readers...I take it that you have your eye on DGM by now ?
Why yes, yes we do. It's informative, and fun to watch, your pathetic theories crushed, by DGM along with others.

Thank you for the laughs, BS!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

It's why this sub-forum should remain open!

[bill smith]

You are putting it like the top crushed the whole building all at one moment. In reality the top ~15 floors in WTC1 and ~30 in WTC2 crushed 1 floor. Then ~15 + 1 floors crushed another 1 floor and so on and so on.

Well do you have any other example of this happening in the history of the planet Earth ? Obviously a principle like this cannot only have been a one-off ?

[bill smith]

Why yes, yes we do. It's informative, and fun to watch, your pathetic theories crushed, by DGM along with others.

Thank you for the laughs, BS!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

It's why this sub-forum should remain open!

I would be willing to bet that you will not survive another 12 months. You are an utter liability to the government now and will be shut down sooner rather than later.

[Oystein]

If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet

Avalanches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche).

A skier (mass: 75kg) can trigger an Avalanche that destroys trees, vehicles and even villages.

So the top 1% of a snowy slope can crush the 99% of lower and stonger structures. By gravity alone.

[Bell]

Well do you have any other example of this happening in the history of the planet Earth ? Obviously a principle like this cannot only have been a one-off ?

Example or not. Why could something not have happened for the first time or have been a one off? History is full of examples of one offs. Lucky so, because else nothing would ever happen. Ever.

[bill smith]

What the "readers" have noticed is that you choose to ignore that as the top 10% was falling it picked up parts of the bottom 90%. These parts are now added to the top 10%. Gravity's funny like that.


Why do you ignore what's added as the top 10% falls?


"Reader" are waiting for your answer!

I invite the Readers to go back several posts to where I laid out my spaghetti model. Then they can use theiir minds eye to envision the collapse occurring as you describe. My intuition tells me that their intuition will not buy it..

[DGM]

I invite the Readers to go back several posts to where I laid out my spaghetti model. Then they can use theiir minds eye to envision the collapse occurring as you describe. My intuition tells me that their intuition will not buy it..
Bill: Your dodging (and the readers see it).

Do you think that the top "block" did not pick up any mass from the bottom "block"?

This is a very simple question. Answer truthfully and you might start to understand why the collapse progressed as seen. (If you really care to)

[angrysoba]

Am I reading that web site wrong?

Yes.

I wrote this:

"Yusef was the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed "

Whoops! That is to say that Yusef was KSM's uncle despite being younger.

Posted by: angrysoba at January 28, 2010 7:36 AM

Which was followed by "Nikko" who wrote this:

No matter whether the buildings were properly constructed or not, the undisputed facts are that all three buildings collapsed in freefall time. Unless Newtonian physics were suspended in NY on 9/11, that implies that all of the potential energy the buildings possessed by virtue of their height had to be converted to kinetic energy to make it to the ground in the time they did. No further energy would be left to collapse the building and break the joints. It is impossible for the buildins to have collapsed of their own accord, particularly as the path was that of the greatest resistance

Posted by: Nikko at January 28, 2010 7:44 AM

To which I wrote:

"No matter whether the buildings were properly constructed or not, the undisputed facts are that all three buildings collapsed in freefall time."

I dispute that and so do thousands and thousands of others.

"It is impossible for the buildins to have collapsed of their own accord, particularly as the path was that of the greatest resistance"

The damage and fires helped out. Do I have to show this video again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

Please watch the video of buildings destroying themselves through the "path of greatest resistance".

Posted by: angrysoba at January 28, 2010 7:55 AM


The comments are signed at the end. Not at the beginning. And please notice what the video I linked to was of.

[angrysoba]

You should explain what Richard Gage is demonstrating in the picture. Can you do that ?

Yes, he's demonstrating that a cardboard box can't crush down another one as fast as yet another cardboard box can drop to the floor.

Or something like that.

(He's actually demonstrating the fact that he's a bit of a clown but no matter).

[bill smith]

Avalanches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avalanche).

A skier (mass: 75kg) can trigger an Avalanche that destroys trees, vehicles and even villages.

So the top 1% of a snowy slope can crush the 99% of lower and stonger structures. By gravity alone.

I'm writing all this down Oystein.please continue.

[bill smith]

Bill: Your dodging (and the readers see it).

Do you think that the top "block" did not pick up any mass from the bottom "block"?

This is a very simple question. Answer truthfully and you might start to understand why the collapse progressed as seen. (If you really care to)

Remember this post ?

'' If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet ''

I don't mind whether your example shows the top 10% picking up material or not.

[Bell]

Remember this post ?

'' If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet ''

I don't mind whether your example shows the top 10% picking up material or not.

Did you read my previous posts?

[16.5]

The comments are signed at the end. Not at the beginning. And please notice what the video I linked to was of.

Wow... that site is odd... a line, your name, somebody else's post, another line..... weird.

[bill smith]

Yes, he's demonstrating that a cardboard box can't crush down another one as fast as yet another cardboard box can drop to the floor.

Or something like that.

(He's actually demonstrating the fact that he's a bit of a clown but no matter).

Thank you. Not a bad explanation. So Raders you can see the point....the top 10% CANNOT crush the lower 90% at all let aone as quickly as the unimpeded block hits the table. On 9/11 we are supposed to believe that the small block crushed the large block almost as quickly as the seperate small block hits the table by falling through the fresh air.

[DGM]

Remember this post ?

'' If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet ''

I don't mind whether your example shows the top 10% picking up material or not.
Bill:
Show us that the top 10% actually crushed the bottom 90%? This never happened on 9/11. I asked you this before and you dodged the question. The "readers" are seeing you sweat!

[angrysoba]

Wow... that site is odd... a line, your name, somebody else's post, another line..... weird.

Yes, it's very primitive. It also contains no HTML tags making it very difficult a lot of the time to see when someone is being quoted.

[Bell]

Did you read my previous posts?

Thank you. Not a bad explanation. So Raders you can see the point....the top 10% CANNOT crush the lower 90% at all let aone as quickly as the unimpeded block hits the table. On 9/11 we are supposed to believe that the small block crushed the large block almost as quickly as the seperate small block hits the table by falling through the fresh air.

Apparently not...

[bill smith]

Bill:
Show us that the top 10% actually crushed the bottom 90%? This never happened on 9/11. I asked you this before and you dodged the question. The "readers" are seeing you sweat!

Maybe after you show the example I've been asking for.

[angrysoba]

Thank you. Not a bad explanation. So Raders you can see the point....the top 10% CANNOT crush the lower 90% at all let aone as quickly as the unimpeded block hits the table. On 9/11 we are supposed to believe that the small block crushed the large block almost as quickly as the seperate small block hits the table by falling through the fresh air.

Of course that would be true if we were talking about cardboard boxes. Unfortunately that very same demonstration could also show that this is impossible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

Also, the twin towers were not "blocks". Your 90%, 10% and "almost as quickly"s are arbitrary qualifiers.

[DGM]

Maybe after you show the example I've been asking for.
Domino's and avalanches are excellent examples.

Bill your asking to disprove something that never actually happened. The "readers" are waiting for you to show that you have a valid argument in the first place. So far all you can do is keep repeating a lie that the "truth" movement wants everyone to believe. That is that the top 10% crushed the bottom 90%.

[bill smith]

Of course that would be true if we were talking about cardboard boxes. Unfortunately that very same demonstration could also show that this is impossible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o

Also, the twin towers were not "blocks". Your 90%, 10% and "almost as quickly"s are arbitrary qualifiers.

Here is an example of why the verinage technique does not apply to the 9/11 paradigm. You. like many another before you have tried to cloud the minds of concerned citizen Readers with this red herring.

If you watch the example video yoou will note the grinding mnoise as the upper section's weight begins to bear n the larger lower section. This is the force of gravity acting. But why is the upper section now crushing the lower section that had carried it for it's entire working lfe ?

A person doesn't have to be very clever to realise that some structural elements have been mechanically removed or modified with jacks or cables in the lower load bearing structure allowing the upper portion to crush the weakened lower portion. Have a look at the structure that remains after the initial collapse.

Freeze the video at 27 seconds.Can you see that that part has not yet been set up for demoliion and is still standing strong ?

Verinage will not help debunkers..

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

[Oystein]

I'm writing all this down Oystein.please continue.

No need to. You asked for examples from the real world of small falling masses having an increasingly destructive effect as they make larger and larges masses fall along. All through gravity alone.

You seemed to imply such things don't exist.
I showed you they do.
Time for you to concede that.

But if you need more examples:

WTC1
WTC2
WTC7

[TheRedWorm]

Bill, you do know that the top 10% did not crush the bottom 90%, but merely the floor below it, right? If you do not think this is the case, please suggest an alternative to how the towers collapsed.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

A person doesn't have to be very clever to realise that some structural elements have been mechanically removed or modified with jacks or cables in the lower load bearing structure allowing the upper portion to crush the weakened lower portion.


Structural support was removed in the Twin Towers as well by the aircraft impacts and heat weakening from the fires.

[bill smith]

Domino's and avalanches are excellent examples.

Bill your asking to disprove something that never actually happened. The "readers" are waiting for you to show that you have a valid argument in the first place. So far all you can do is keep repeating a lie that the "truth" movement wants everyone to believe. That is that the top 10% crushed the bottom 90%.

Nope. I want better examples than say dominoes. The Readers may have noticed that a single falling domiono may have triggered the cascade but the action is for the rest is all horizontal.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core columns spaced in a rectangle

Why can't I use 24 spaghetti sticks and 47x 2-stick bundles?

[bill smith]

No need to. You asked for examples from the real world of small falling masses having an increasingly destructive effect as they make larger and larges masses fall along. All through gravity alone.

You seemed to imply such things don't exist.
I showed you they do.
Time for you to concede that.

But if you need more examples:

WTC1
WTC2
WTC7


Well that explains it all then ..lol

[DGM]

Nope. I want better examples than say dominoes. The Readers may have noticed that a single falling domiono may have triggered the cascade but the action is for the rest is all horizontal.
You still have not shown that the top 10% crushed the bottom 90%. Why should I argue that it can't happen when it never did? The "readers" see this.

Why are you promoting a lie?

[angrysoba]

A person doesn't have to be very clever to realise that some structural elements have been mechanically removed or modified with jacks or cables in the lower load bearing structure allowing the upper portion to crush the weakened lower portion. Have a look at the structure that remains after the initial collapse.

A person doesn't have to be very clever to realize that some structural elements have been rather brutally removed or "modified" prior to the Twin Towers collapses when looking at these two pictures:

http://www.guardianchronicle.com/images/the%20world%20trade%20center.jpg

http://newglob.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/world_trade_center.jpg?w=300&h=222

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet

Arizona, ~48,000 BC.

A chunk of rock the size of a train car flash vaporized a million times its own size and mass worth of rock and blasted it 20 miles into the sky.

[bill smith]

A person doesn't have to be very clever to realize that some structural elements have been rather brutally removed or "modified" prior to the Twin Towers collapses when looking at these two pictures:

http://www.guardianchronicle.com/images/the%20world%20trade%20center.jpg

http://newglob.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/world_trade_center.jpg?w=300&h=222

Dang...I never thought of that.....so it was verinage on 9/11 ? lol

[bill smith]

Arizona, ~48,000 BC.

A chunk of rock the size of a train car flash vaporized a million times its own size and mass worth of rock and blasted it 20 miles into the sky.

Got any pitchers ?

[Oystein]

Here is an example of why the verinage technique does not apply to the 9/11 paradigm. You. like many another before you have tried to cloud the minds of concerned citizen Readers with this red herring.

If you watch the example video yoou will note the grinding mnoise as the upper section's weight begins to bear n the larger lower section. This is the force of gravity acting. But why is the upper section now crushing the lower section that had carried it for it's entire working lfe ?

A person doesn't have to be very clever to realise that some structural elements have been mechanically removed or modified with jacks or cables in the lower load bearing structure allowing the upper portion to crush the weakened lower portion. Have a look at the structure that remains after the initial collapse.

Freeze the video at 27 seconds.Can you see that that part has not yet been set up for demoliion and is still standing strong ?

Verinage will not help debunkers..

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

Freeze the video at 29 seconds and you will see that the top 7 stories have crushed the 6th story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 6 stories)
Freeze the video at 30 seconds and you will see that the top 8 stories have crushed the 5th story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 5 stories)
Freeze the video at 31 seconds and you will see that the top 9 stories have crushed the 4th story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 4 stories)
Freeze the video at 32 seconds and you will see that the top 10 stories have crushed the 3rd story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 3 stories)
Freeze the video at the end of 32 seconds and you will see that the top 11/B] stories have crushed the 2nd story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 2 stories)
Freeze the video at 33 seconds and you will see that the top [B]12 stories have crushed the 1st story

Notice how the top part accumulates stories and mass every second.
Notice how the top 8 (then 9, then 10, then 11, then 12) upper stories keep moving and, if anything, pick up speed rather than losing any.
Notice how the top never destroys the entire bottom, but goes story by story.

Now suppose there had been 95 more stories below - is there any doubt that the top 13 stories would have crushed the next, and then the top 14 stories the next, and then the top 15 stories the next, and then the top 16 stories the next, and so on and on and on. until the whole mess finally hits the ground?

Because, you see, verinage demolition does not depend very much on first taking out the center story. It just needs enough top stories to overwhelm one more, and the rest goes down to the ground.
As the video shows, 6 top stories will do the trick.
The twin towers had 15 and 33 stories to start with.

[TheRedWorm]

Bill, you do know that the top 10% did not crush the bottom 90%, but merely the floor below it, right? If you do not think this is the case, please suggest an alternative to how the towers collapsed.

Bill?

[bill smith]

You still have not shown that the top 10% crushed the bottom 90%. Why should I argue that it can't happen when it never did? The "readers" see this.

Why are you promoting a lie?

Here's a video so they can have a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1

[Bell]

Bill?

You are putting it like the top crushed the whole building all at one moment. In reality the top ~15 floors in WTC1 and ~30 in WTC2 crushed 1 floor. Then ~15 + 1 floors crushed another 1 floor and so on and so on.

Bill?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Got any pitchers ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Meteor.jpg/800px-Meteor.jpg

[Oystein]

Nope. I want better examples than say dominoes. The Readers may have noticed that a single falling domiono may have triggered the cascade but the action is for the rest is all horizontal.

The momentum amd energy of 1 domino is enough to accelerate 4 million dominos and give each one the same momentum?? Urrr...

The Readers may have noticed that a falling (hint: faling! hint!) domino is under the influence of gravity, and that in fact all 4 million falling dominos are in fact falling - as in "being pulled down by gravity".

Or do you have another candidate force?

[Oystein]

Dang...I never thought of that.....so it was verinage on 9/11 ? lol

It was something somewhat akin to verinage, yes.
Man, Bill, you found a grain of truth :)

[bill smith]

Bill, you do know that the top 10% did not crush the bottom 90%, but merely the floor below it, right? If you do not think this is the case, please suggest an alternative to how the towers collapsed.
I refer you to an answer I gave the gentleman before..

'' If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet ''

'' I don't mind whether your example shows the top 10% picking up material or not.''

We will get to hpow the towers were brought down in due course.

[bill smith]

It was something somewhat akin to verinage, yes.
Man, Bill, you found a grain of truth :)

I do hope you will expand on it Oystein...

[bill smith]

The momentum amd energy of 1 domino is enough to accelerate 4 million dominos and give each one the same momentum?? Urrr...

The Readers may have noticed that a falling (hint: faling! hint!) domino is under the influence of gravity, and that in fact all 4 million falling dominos are in fact falling - as in "being pulled down by gravity".

Or do you have another candidate force?

lol

[TheRedWorm]

I refer you to an answer I gave the gentleman before..

'' If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet ''

'' I don't mind whether your example shows the top 10% picking up material or not.''


Nevermind that you did not answer that the top 10% of floors only crushed the single floor below it...


We will get to hpow the towers were brought down in due course.


No. Now. How were the towers brought down?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The momentum amd energy of 1 domino is enough to accelerate 4 million dominos and give each one the same momentum?? Urrr...

The Readers may have noticed that a falling (hint: faling! hint!) domino is under the influence of gravity, and that in fact all 4 million falling dominos are in fact falling - as in "being pulled down by gravity".

Or do you have another candidate force?

Each domino is essentially a battery. The energy you expend raising each one against the force of gravity is released when it tips over.

The same goes with the WTC. Every kilowatt of electricity and gallon of gasoline used by the cranes during construction and the elevators moving stuff into the building was stored for thirty years until it was released in a matter of seconds.

You'll find it was a huge amount of energy when you add it all up.

[Oystein]

I do hope you will expand on it Oystein...

Readers understand very well what I mean:

In a verinage demolition, one intermediate story has its structural elements removed by force, sending the top stories falling on the story below, and triggering an avalanching collapse all the way down to the ground.

In the twin towers, one intermediate story had its structural elements removed by force, sending the top stories falling on the story below, and triggering an avalanching collapse all the way down to the ground.


Only difference really is the force applied to the failing story. In one case, it's cranes, pulleys or explosives, at the twin towers it was airplanes and fires.

[Oystein]

lol

Yeah. Falling can be funny. Like when a cat falls of the sofa, or a kid falls into the pool. Aight?

[bill smith]

Readers understand very well what I mean:

In a verinage demolition, one intermediate story has its structural elements removed by force, sending the top stories falling on the story below, and triggering an avalanching collapse all the way down to the ground.

In the twin towers, one intermediate story had its structural elements removed by force, sending the top stories falling on the story below, and triggering an avalanching collapse all the way down to the ground.


Only difference really is the force applied to the failing story. In one case, it's cranes, pulleys or explosives, at the twin towers it was airplanes and fires.

Suppose the building had been 500 stories tall. One and a quarter miles or so. Would the top 20 floors or so have crushed the rest down flat onto the ground ?

[Bell]

Suppose the building had been 500 stories tall. One and a quarter miles or so. Would the top 20 floors or so have crushed the rest down flat onto the ground ?

No. But the top 20 floors would have crushed the 480th floor. Then the top 20 + 1 floors would have crushed the 479th floor. Etcetera etcetera...

[DGM]

Here's a video so they can have a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1
Do you plan to show evidence that the top 10% actually crushed the bottom 90% anytime soon? The "readers" are getting bored with your dodging.

[bill smith]

No. But the top 20 floors would have crushed the 480th floor. Then the top 20 + 1 floors would have crushed the 479th floor. Etcetera etcetera...

I wonder if your colleagues agree ?

[DGM]

I wonder if your colleagues agree ?
Yes.

What does he get wrong?

[16.5]

I wonder if your colleagues agree ?

Yes, I agree with my "colleague."

[TheRedWorm]

We will get to hpow the towers were brought down in due course.
No. Now. How were the towers brought down?

Focus, Bill.

[Oystein]

Suppose the building had been 500 stories tall. One and a quarter miles or so. Would the top 20 floors or so have crushed the rest down flat onto the ground ?

Yes. Except for the "flat". The rubble pile would be even higher.

[bill smith]

Readers understand very well what I mean:

In a verinage demolition, one intermediate story has its structural elements removed by force, sending the top stories falling on the story below, and triggering an avalanching collapse all the way down to the ground.

In the twin towers, one intermediate story had its structural elements removed by force, sending the top stories falling on the story below, and triggering an avalanching collapse all the way down to the ground.


Only difference really is the force applied to the failing story. In one case, it's cranes, pulleys or explosives, at the twin towers it was airplanes and fires.
Did you know that in WTC1 only 15% of the supporting columns .core and perimeter wre destroyed by the plane. Only two of the 47 massive core columns were taken out.

So given that 85% of the columns between the upper and lower parts were fully intact do you still consider that enough ' structural elements were removed by force ' to allow the free collapse of the upper block onto the lower ?

Do you not think that the steel would have slowly softened to the point where the top lowered itself gently onto the lower block.

Of course if this happened then there was next to no dynamic force applied on the lower block which in turn means that collapse arrest should have happened immediately.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I wonder if your colleagues agree ?

You don't think 20 floors can crush one floor, Bill?

[bill smith]

Yes.

What does he get wrong?

'She' I think

[Bell]

'She' I think

Wrong.

Stop thinking and start listening.

[Oystein]

Did you know that in WTC1 only 15% of the supporting columns .core and perimeter wre destroyed by the plane. Only two of the 47 massive core columns were taken out.

So given that 85% of the columns between the upper and lower parts were fully intact do you still consider that enough ' structural elements were removed by force ' to allow the free collapse of the upper block onto the lower ?

As you surely noticed, neither did I claim that the airplanes alone took out the support, nor did they alone trigger the collapse. So that remark is irrelevant. And I am sure you know it.


Do you not think that the steel would have slowly softened to the point where the top lowered itself gently onto the lower block.

The appropriate response would be "lol"
But I am not here to show disrespect.
You see, steel columns are not hydraulic elevators or cranes or gentle turtles supporting the earth. Steel columns are things that are strong as long as they are straight an vertical.
Your "lowering itself gently" seems to imply that some columns magically bow down or get compressed from several meters close to zip. Of course they wouldn't do that. A strained column will lose its ability to support seriousl loads after just a few inches of bending, strain, whatever. They then break (or more realistically, the bolted or welded joints between two column sections break). Load distribution occurs without much downward movement as long as enough columns remain to support the full weight. When they start breaking beyond that, they break rapidly indeed.

Just ask any real structural engineer.


Of course if this happened then there was next to no dynamic force applied on the lower block which in turn means that collapse arrest should have happened immediately.

You are making this up.

[bill smith]

Wrong.

Stop thinking and start listening.

Meiske

[bill smith]

As you surely noticed, neither did I claim that the airplanes alone took out the support, nor did they alone trigger the collapse. So that remark is irrelevant. And I am sure you know it.




The appropriate response would be "lol"
But I am not here to show disrespect.
You see, steel columns are not hydraulic elevators or cranes or gentle turtles supporting the earth. Steel columns are things that are strong as long as they are straight an vertical.
Your "lowering itself gently" seems to imply that some columns magically bow down or get compressed from several meters close to zip. Of course they wouldn't do that. A strained column will lose its ability to support seriousl loads after just a few inches of bending, strain, whatever. They then break (or more realistically, the bolted or welded joints between two column sections break). Load distribution occurs without much downward movement as long as enough columns remain to support the full weight. When they start breaking beyond that, they break rapidly indeed.

Just ask any real structural engineer.




You are making this up.

There you go Readers. Write that down somewhere.

[Bell]

Meiske

<< Jochie

:p

[bill smith]

<< Jochie

:p

Meiske

[Bell]

Meiske

Do you really want to get into a discussion with me about me being a boy or a girl? Really?

[bill smith]

Do you really want to get into a discussion with me about me being a boy or a girl? Really?

Not really. I was just curious.

[Bell]

Not really. I was just curious.

Okay. Now this is out of the way, what did I get wrong in this post:

No. But the top 20 floors would have crushed the 480th floor. Then the top 20 + 1 floors would have crushed the 479th floor. Etcetera etcetera...

[bill smith]

Freeze the video at 29 seconds and you will see that the top 7 stories have crushed the 6th story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 6 stories)
Freeze the video at 30 seconds and you will see that the top 8 stories have crushed the 5th story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 5 stories)
Freeze the video at 31 seconds and you will see that the top 9 stories have crushed the 4th story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 4 stories)
Freeze the video at 32 seconds and you will see that the top 10 stories have crushed the 3rd story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 3 stories)
Freeze the video at the end of 32 seconds and you will see that the top 11/B] stories have crushed the 2nd story (and little below it - NOT the bottom 2 stories)
Freeze the video at 33 seconds and you will see that the top [B]12 stories have crushed the 1st story

Notice how the top part accumulates stories and mass every second.
Notice how the top 8 (then 9, then 10, then 11, then 12) upper stories keep moving and, if anything, pick up speed rather than losing any.
Notice how the top never destroys the entire bottom, but goes story by story.

Now suppose there had been 95 more stories below - is there any doubt that the top 13 stories would have crushed the next, and then the top 14 stories the next, and then the top 15 stories the next, and then the top 16 stories the next, and so on and on and on. until the whole mess finally hits the ground?

Because, you see, verinage demolition does not depend very much on first taking out the center story. It just needs enough top stories to overwhelm one more, and the rest goes down to the ground.
As the video shows, 6 top stories will do the trick.
The twin towers had 15 and 33 stories to start with.

And do they also carry out verinage on steel framed buildings ? Like do you think that example in the video had a steel core ? Or is verinage carried out on brick and concrete buildings mostly ?

[Dog Town]

And do they also carry out verinage on steel framed buildings ? Like do you think that example in the video had a steel core ? Or is verinage carried out on brick and concrete buildings mostly ?

Anybody see those goalposts?

[djlunacee]

I wonder if your colleagues agree ?

Indeed, I do agree.

[Quad4_72]

Let the record show that Bill has been here since Feb 2009 and has 5,336 posts of complete nonsense. Argue at your sanity's own risk.

And to the OP, its just the same old drivel spewed by the CFs. Nothing new.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So given that 85% of the columns between the upper and lower parts were fully intact

In what universe are steel girders heated past 1100 degrees considered "fully intact"?

[Telltale Tom]

Did you know that in WTC1 only 15% of the supporting columns .core and perimeter wre destroyed by the plane. Only two of the 47 massive core columns were taken out.

So given that 85% of the columns between the upper and lower parts were fully intact do you still consider that enough ' structural elements were removed by force ' to allow the free collapse of the upper block onto the lower ?

Do you not think that the steel would have slowly softened to the point where the top lowered itself gently onto the lower block.

Of course if this happened then there was next to no dynamic force applied on the lower block which in turn means that collapse arrest should have happened immediately.

Good Point Bill,

Yes indeed the laws of physics that suggest that a buckling failure will always be a rapid failure are very inconvenient. Hah but you knew that and you were just being tricksy.

But I do like your video of the spire. I think that conclusively prooves that the explosives were not all detonated at the same time and that the spire was detonated after the main columns. I guess this must be documentation of the first mistake made by the demo team.

Its certainly worth a chapter in the next book.

[triforcharity]

If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet

You missed his point completly, as you usually do.

The top 10% did not HAVE to crush the lower 90%. It only had to crush 1 floor.

[triforcharity]

I invite the Readers to go back several posts to where I laid out my spaghetti model. Then they can use theiir minds eye to envision the collapse occurring as you describe. My intuition tells me that their intuition will not buy it..

Yes, OUR intuition tells us that spagetti is not a good representation of the WTC at all!

[triforcharity]

Here is an example of why the verinage technique does not apply to the 9/11 paradigm. You. like many another before you have tried to cloud the minds of concerned citizen Readers with this red herring.

If you watch the example video yoou will note the grinding mnoise as the upper section's weight begins to bear n the larger lower section. This is the force of gravity acting. But why is the upper section now crushing the lower section that had carried it for it's entire working lfe ?

A person doesn't have to be very clever to realise that some structural elements have been mechanically removed or modified with jacks or cables in the lower load bearing structure allowing the upper portion to crush the weakened lower portion. Have a look at the structure that remains after the initial collapse.

Freeze the video at 27 seconds.Can you see that that part has not yet been set up for demoliion and is still standing strong ?

Verinage will not help debunkers..

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

That is a lie Bill, and you know it.

You have been shown time and again that the lower section does not have to be weakened structurally at all. It even says so in the patent.

Now, stop lying bill.

[triforcharity]

I wonder if your colleagues agree ?

Yes, I agree also. Even if it was 5 floors on a 10,000,000,000 story building. Built like the WTC, it would have collapsed to the ground. It would have taken about a week, but it would have happened.

I wonder if your doltish friends would still claim that it fell at freefall speed?

[triforcharity]

Did you know that in WTC1 only 15% of the supporting columns .core and perimeter wre destroyed by the plane. Only two of the 47 massive core columns were taken out.

So given that 85% of the columns between the upper and lower parts were fully intact do you still consider that enough ' structural elements were removed by force ' to allow the free collapse of the upper block onto the lower ?

Do you not think that the steel would have slowly softened to the point where the top lowered itself gently onto the lower block.

Of course if this happened then there was next to no dynamic force applied on the lower block which in turn means that collapse arrest should have happened immediately.

Can a brother get a laughing dog please????
:D:D

[triforcharity]

And do they also carry out verinage on steel framed buildings ? Like do you think that example in the video had a steel core ? Or is verinage carried out on brick and concrete buildings mostly ?

I bet you could carry that technique out on any building. Even one made of Jello!

[Oystein]

And do they also carry out verinage on steel framed buildings ? Like do you think that example in the video had a steel core ? Or is verinage carried out on brick and concrete buildings mostly ?

As most buildings are brick or concrete, I guess most demolitiojn techniques are mostly carried out on brick and concrete buildings.

However there really is no reason to assume it would not work just fine or even better on other kinds of structures.

The basic idea remains: You initiate the demolition by taking out one story worth of supports.
Top portion falls the height of one story.
Picks up momentum through gravity.
Force needed to arrest that momentun at next story far exceeds design loads.
Next story fails and is added to the fall.
Top portion plus one more story picks up even more speed.



Thinking about it, I think verinage technique would work even better on steel frame.
Reason: Most buildings involve reinforced concrete because that material is so much better at resisting bending and crushing forces.
WTC was done in steel only because reinforced concrete would have been too heavy and massive at that height and would not have allowed the open office spaces.
Therefore, steel represents a compromise at the cost of lower resistance to bending and crushing forces.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's another model

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core columns spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 12'' onto the lower 90% (A).

Will the top 10% (C) crush the lower 90% (A) right down flat on the ground ?

That is what happened at the WTC on 9/11 for the first time on the recorded history of the Planet Earth and not only once but twice in an hour.

Hey Bill. I want to try your experiment, but I don't have alot of spaghetti laying around, so I'm going to use a lot less than you called for in your design.

Is this ok with you?

[Oystein]

Here's another model

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core columns spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 12'' onto the lower 90% (A).

Will the top 10% (C) crush the lower 90% (A) right down flat on the ground ?

That is what happened at the WTC on 9/11 for the first time on the recorded history of the Planet Earth and not only once but twice in an hour.

I kinda like the model.

However, I bolded the two problems (really only one) I have with it:

1. How long do you want the spaghetti to be? Standard Spaghetti are about 2mm wide and 300mm long (150:1) and weighs about 1g.
A column of the twin towers would have a full length of over 432m from basement to roof. The perimeter columns were 36cmx36cm, giving them a ratio of length:width of 1200:1. The biggest core columns were 90x30cm - or width was 60cm on average - at the basement! Getting thinner towards the top.
So standard spaghetti would be relatively too thick - but of course they are made of semolina and not of steel ^^

2. How do you scale your model correctly, especially with regards to length:mass and length:load bearing capacity?
I just did a simple measurement in my kitchen. I took one spaghetto* (is spaghetto the correct singular of spaghetti?), a good electronic kitchen scale, placed the spaghetto vertically on the scale (1g - but that is actually below the pecision of my scale; I weighed them by counting 20 and finding 20 of them weigh 19g). Then I pushed down on the spaghetto. Since it is not straight, it started bending right away. But it being flexible, I was able to put the equivalent of 30g on one specimen, 19g on another specimen and 22 on a third before they broke. Make that an average of 24g. They bent along their entire length, of course.
No i introduced some lateral bracing near the middle of the spaghetto and measured again: This time I was able to place somewhere between 70 and 100g on top of one spaghetto without breaking it!
Now suppose I divide my 300mm spaghetto into 110 pieces, each about 3mm long, and measure the weight a 3mm section of spaghetti can support; actually, that is hard to do (I am the kind of guy who was born with two left hands :p). So ooookay I do it with 9mm (remember columns were stacked with individual sections spanning 3 stories): I could now put a weight of more than 300g on it, and it didn't break (due to my clumsiness, when I pressed harder, the piece would get snipped to the side).

Now.
10% of 1 spaghetto weighs 0.1g
one column section spanning 3 stories can support 300g (at least! possibly much more than that, I was just too clumsy to increase static load). That is 3000 times the column mass of the top 10%.
You may add the mass of the floors. I am okay if you assume that the floors weigh 10 times as much as the columns; still your spaghetti columns can carry 300 times the weight of your top 10%.
If you build your model to scale, your dimensions should be such that load bearing capacity of your spaghetti is only like 3-5 times the weight of your top 10%.
You could achieve this correct scale by building the model with only 5 to 9 spaghetti but making the tower the mass of about 10 packs of spaghetti one pound (500g) each.

I am fairly confident if your spaghetti-and-sugar-tower is thusly build to scale, it will crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top.




* footnote: I actually did not use standard spaghetti but bavette, which differ from spaghetti by not being round but oval. Long diameter is 3mm and short diameter is 1mm - so by coincidence, they are 3x1 just like the core columns.

[bill smith]

I kinda like the model.

However, I bolded the two problems (really only one) I have with it:

1. How long do you want the spaghetti to be? Standard Spaghetti are about 2mm wide and 300mm long (150:1) and weighs about 1g.
A column of the twin towers would have a full length of over 432m from basement to roof. The perimeter columns were 36cmx36cm, giving them a ratio of length:width of 1200:1. The biggest core columns were 90x30cm - or width was 60cm on average - at the basement! Getting thinner towards the top.
So standard spaghetti would be relatively too thick - but of course they are made of semolina and not of steel ^^

2. How do you scale your model correctly, especially with regards to length:mass and length:load bearing capacity?
I just did a simple measurement in my kitchen. I took one spaghetto* (is spaghetto the correct singular of spaghetti?), a good electronic kitchen scale, placed the spaghetto vertically on the scale (1g - but that is actually below the pecision of my scale; I weighed them by counting 20 and finding 20 of them weigh 19g). Then I pushed down on the spaghetto. Since it is not straight, it started bending right away. But it being flexible, I was able to put the equivalent of 30g on one specimen, 19g on another specimen and 22 on a third before they broke. Make that an average of 24g. They bent along their entire length, of course.
No i introduced some lateral bracing near the middle of the spaghetto and measured again: This time I was able to place somewhere between 70 and 100g on top of one spaghetto without breaking it!
Now suppose I divide my 300mm spaghetto into 110 pieces, each about 3mm long, and measure the weight a 3mm section of spaghetti can support; actually, that is hard to do (I am the kind of guy who was born with two left hands :p). So ooookay I do it with 9mm (remember columns were stacked with individual sections spanning 3 stories): I could now put a weight of more than 300g on it, and it didn't break (due to my clumsiness, when I pressed harder, the piece would get snipped to the side).

Now.
10% of 1 spaghetto weighs 0.1g
one column section spanning 3 stories can support 300g (at least! possibly much more than that, I was just too clumsy to increase static load). That is 3000 times the column mass of the top 10%.
You may add the mass of the floors. I am okay if you assume that the floors weigh 10 times as much as the columns; still your spaghetti columns can carry 300 times the weight of your top 10%.
If you build your model to scale, your dimensions should be such that load bearing capacity of your spaghetti is only like 3-5 times the weight of your top 10%.
You could achieve this correct scale by building the model with only 5 to 9 spaghetti but making the tower the mass of about 10 packs of spaghetti one pound (500g) each.

I am fairly confident if your spaghetti-and-sugar-tower is thusly build to scale, it will crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top.




* footnote: I actually did not use standard spaghetti but bavette, which differ from spaghetti by not being round but oval. Long diameter is 3mm and short diameter is 1mm - so by coincidence, they are 3x1 just like the core columns.

I envision the model being built to scale to around 6 feet tall so that the top of the lower block is at eye level. Then the top and lightest one-tenth of the structure is raised 12'' and dropped on the lower and more robust nine-tenths of the structure.l I invite the Readers to picture your ' crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top ' scenario

[CORed]

I envision the model being built to scale to around 6 feet tall so that the top of the lower block is at eye level. Then the top and lightest one-tenth of the structure is raised 12'' and dropped on the lower and more robust nine-tenths of the structure.l I invite the Readers to picture your ' crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top ' scenario

I guess pizza boxes and office trays just aren't silly enough.

[Oystein]

I envision the model being built to scale to around 6 feet tall so that the top of the lower block is at eye level. Then the top and lightest one-tenth of the structure is raised 12'' and dropped on the lower and more robust nine-tenths of the structure.l I invite the Readers to picture your ' crash all the way to the ground if you drop the top ' scenario


It's funny how you have, in 100% original truther fashion, completely dodged, ignored, missed the one important point of my previous post:

That of scale.

If you build your model 6ft (180cm) tall, that would be 6 spaghetti high, about 18 stories = levels of lateral bracing per spaghetto. Too bad I already ate my broken spaghetti, so I'll have to break another, make it 300mm/18 = about 16,5mm, measure the strength of that lenght of spaghetti...
but at least with 6 spaghetti, you are now up to a height-thickness-ratio of 900:1, which is reasonably close to scale.

*doing measurement on my kitchen scale*

Oh! Bad news: 16.5 mm are a lot more easily to handle for a clumsy person like me!
Turns out my first story-length piece (actually 17.5mm) of spaghetti supported at least 1100g before it broke.
My second piece (16mm) was even stronger: I gave up when I peaked briefly a little above 3000g because my thumbtip hurt from the tip of the piece poking into it.
Third piece (17mm) resisted 1500+g several times, where again I gave up as my thumb now seriously hurts. Dang, that spaghetti-stuff is strong!

So by experiment one column of story-height can carry a static load of at least 1500g.

Let's be conservative and say this is 5 times the actual load. Hence, let the top 10% (ohhh - can we make that 16.7%, so our top portion is as high as standard spaghetti are long?) weigh 300g per spaghetti column. As there are 522 columns, the total weight of the top block in our model would therefore have to have a mass of 522*300g = 156.6 kg.

522 spaghetti is coincidentally quite close to the number of spaghetti in a standard 1 pound (500g) pack that serves 4 to 5.

So would a pack of spaghetti withstand 156.6 kg (twice my body weight) if it falls onto it?

Hmmm.


Let's further improve our model and calculations:
I said that our spaghetti are laterally braced every 16.5mm - that is one story. Initially, our 156.6 kg would have to fall only those 16.5mm.

What velocity will the upper block have?
Let's see:
potential energy U = m*g*h
gets converted into
kinetic energy Ek = 1/2 m*v2

m*g*h = 1/2 m*v2
<=>
v2 = 2*g*h
<=>
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = sqrt(2 * 9.8m/s2 * 0.0165m) = 0.56 m/s


Next step: The top block, falling at 0.56 m/s, falls onto our next set of 16.5mm long spaghetti, which excert a force up and will decelerate the block. At the same time, gravitation still pulls down (accelerate) at a rate of g.
The movement cannot be stopped instantaneously in this universe, as that would be equivalent to an infinite acceleration and hence an infinite force.
So as the falling block touches the tips of our spaghetti, the will get strained and bent. How much can you bend a spaghetto before it breaks?


Next experiment:
I bent a bavetta (a relative of the spaghetti family, see footnote in my previous port; mine are 257mm long) carefully in roughly a circular shape. Needless to say, the thing broke before it had formed a full circle, but it went round more than 180°. I am doing this in a very clumsy fashion - my best estimate is that I reached 240° of a circle, or 2/3 of a full circle. Full circle would have had a circumference of 257mm / (2/3) = 385mm. Radius therefore 385mm/2pi = 61mm.
Now comes the tricky math part - if I bend an upright column piece of 16.5 into a radius of 61mm, it represents an angle A of (16.5mm/385mm)*360° = 15°. What is the distance hbent of the two ends of that column piece?

*consulting my Bronstein-Semendjajev Pocket book of Mathematics*
Aha!
hbent = 2r * sin(A/2) = 2 * 61mm * sin(7.5°) = 15,924mm = 96.5% of column height.

In other words: Our spaghetti columns of 16.5mm can elastically bend until the floor resting on them has moved down by 0.576mm = 0.000576m


So if we want to stop the top floor's 0.56 m/s before the spaghetti break and the story collapses, deceleration to 0 has to occur within 0,576mm.

Now, the formula to derive distance from acceleration is
s(t) = 1/2 a*t2 = 0,000576m
<=>
t = sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a)

same for velocity vs. acceleration is
v(t) = a*t = 0.56 m/s
<=>
t = 0.56 m/s / a

so

sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a) = 0.56 m/s / a
<=>
2 * 0,000576m / a = (0.56 m/s)2 / a2
<=>
2 * 0,000576m = (0.56 m/s)2 / a
<=>
a= (0.56 m/s)2 / (2 * 0,000576m) = 272 m/s2 = 27.8g

Ok here is a problem: We said that our columns are designed to be able to carry 5 times the static load, that is, resist a force of 5g times the mass on top. However, we'd need columns that are nearly 6 times as strong! That means: Our spaghetti will break before the top mass has come to rest. Collapse will continue!


Did we at least slow the fall somewhat? Sure, let's see by how much.

Initial velocity (down) vi = 0.56 m/s
Max. upward acceleration that our columns can bear is a = -5g = 49 m/s2
But this -5g is diminished by the constant pull of gravity, so our spaghetti can effectively decelerate the falling mass by a = -4g = -39,2m/s2

Velocity is
v(t) = vi - 39.2m/s2 * t
Distance (fallen) is
s(t) = vi*t - 1/2 39.2m/s2

I am too lazy now to figure out analytically at what t s(t) >= 0,000576m and what v(t) is then. I quickly ran the formulas through a spreadsheet:

t v s
0,0000 0,5600 0,000000
0,0001 0,5561 0,000056
0,0002 0,5522 0,000111
0,0003 0,5482 0,000166
0,0004 0,5443 0,000221
0,0005 0,5404 0,000275
0,0006 0,5365 0,000329
0,0007 0,5326 0,000382
0,0008 0,5286 0,000435
0,0009 0,5247 0,000488
0,0010 0,5208 0,000540
0,0011 0,5169 0,000592

So we see: After only 0.0011s, we have exceeded the maximum elastic deformation our spaghetti can bear, at which pint they break.
Velocity is then still 0.5169m/s, or 92% of the initial 0.56m/s

Our accumulated stories can now fall more or less freely for 15.96mm, during which velocity increases to about 0.7609m/s. Then we have another spaghetti crash which will again reduce velocity by only about 8% etc. etc.


Result: We can expect our 6' tower with 522 spaghetti columns and a total mass of 939.6kg to collapse within 10% of free fall speed

[bill smith]

It's funny how you have, in 100% original truther fashion, completely dodged, ignored, missed the one important point of my previous post:

That of scale.

If you build your model 6ft (180cm) tall, that would be 6 spaghetti high, about 18 stories = levels of lateral bracing per spaghetto. Too bad I already ate my broken spaghetti, so I'll have to break another, make it 300mm/18 = about 16,5mm, measure the strength of that lenght of spaghetti...
but at least with 6 spaghetti, you are now up to a height-thickness-ratio of 900:1, which is reasonably close to scale.

*doing measurement on my kitchen scale*

Oh! Bad news: 16.5 mm are a lot more easily to handle for a clumsy person like me!
Turns out my first story-length piece (actually 17.5mm) of spaghetti supported at least 1100g before it broke.
My second piece (16mm) was even stronger: I gave up when I peaked briefly a little above 3000g because my thumbtip hurt from the tip of the piece poking into it.
Third piece (17mm) resisted 1500+g several times, where again I gave up as my thumb now seriously hurts. Dang, that spaghetti-stuff is strong!

So by experiment one column of story-height can carry a static load of at least 1500g.

Let's be conservative and say this is 5 times the actual load. Hence, let the top 10% (ohhh - can we make that 16.7%, so our top portion is as high as standard spaghetti are long?) weigh 300g per spaghetti column. As there are 522 columns, the total weight of the top block in our model would therefore have to have a mass of 522*300g = 156.6 kg.

522 spaghetti is coincidentally quite close to the number of spaghetti in a standard 1 pound (500g) pack that serves 4 to 5.

So would a pack of spaghetti withstand 156.6 kg (twice my body weight) if it falls onto it?

Hmmm.


Let's further improve our model and calculations:
I said that our spaghetti are laterally braced every 16.5mm - that is one story. Initially, our 156.6 kg would have to fall only those 16.5mm.

What velocity will the upper block have?
Let's see:
potential energy U = m*g*h
gets converted into
kinetic energy Ek = 1/2 m*v2

m*g*h = 1/2 m*v2
<=>
v2 = 2*g*h
<=>
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = sqrt(2 * 9.8m/s2 * 0.0165m) = 0.56 m/s


Next step: The top block, falling at 0.56 m/s, falls onto our next set of 16.5mm long spaghetti, which excert a force up and will decelerate the block. At the same time, gravitation still pulls down (accelerate) at a rate of g.
The movement cannot be stopped instantaneously in this universe, as that would be equivalent to an infinite acceleration and hence an infinite force.
So as the falling block touches the tips of our spaghetti, the will get strained and bent. How much can you bend a spaghetto before it breaks?


Next experiment:
I bent a bavetta (a relative of the spaghetti family, see footnote in my previous port; mine are 257mm long) carefully in roughly a circular shape. Needless to say, the thing broke before it had formed a full circle, but it went round more than 180°. I am doing this in a very clumsy fashion - my best estimate is that I reached 240° of a circle, or 2/3 of a full circle. Full circle would have had a circumference of 257mm / (2/3) = 385mm. Radius therefore 385mm/2pi = 61mm.
Now comes the tricky math part - if I bend an upright column piece of 16.5 into a radius of 61mm, it represents an angle A of (16.5mm/385mm)*360° = 15°. What is the distance hbent of the two ends of that column piece?

*consulting my Bronstein-Semendjajev Pocket book of Mathematics*
Aha!
hbent = 2r * sin(A/2) = 2 * 61mm * sin(7.5°) = 15,924mm = 96.5% of column height.

In other words: Our spaghetti columns of 16.5mm can elastically bend until the floor resting on them has moved down by 0.576mm = 0.000576m


So if we want to stop the top floor's 0.56 m/s before the spaghetti break and the story collapses, deceleration to 0 has to occur within 0,576mm.

Now, the formula to derive distance from acceleration is
s(t) = 1/2 a*t2 = 0,000576m
<=>
t = sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a)

same for velocity vs. acceleration is
v(t) = a*t = 0.56 m/s
<=>
t = 0.56 m/s / a

so

sqrt(2 * 0,000576m / a) = 0.56 m/s / a
<=>
2 * 0,000576m / a = (0.56 m/s)2 / a2
<=>
2 * 0,000576m = (0.56 m/s)2 / a
<=>
a= (0.56 m/s)2 / (2 * 0,000576m) = 272 m/s2 = 27.8g

Ok here is a problem: We said that our columns are designed to be able to carry 5 times the static load, that is, resist a force of 5g times the mass on top. However, we'd need columns that are nearly 6 times as strong! That means: Our spaghetti will break before the top mass has come to rest. Collapse will continue!


Did we at least slow the fall somewhat? Sure, let's see by how much.

Initial velocity (down) vi = 0.56 m/s
Max. upward acceleration that our columns can bear is a = -5g = 49 m/s2
But this -5g is diminished by the constant pull of gravity, so our spaghetti can effectively decelerate the falling mass by a = -4g = -39,2m/s2

Velocity is
v(t) = vi - 39.2m/s2 * t
Distance (fallen) is
s(t) = vi*t - 1/2 39.2m/s2

I am too lazy now to figure out analytically at what t s(t) >= 0,000576m and what v(t) is then. I quickly ran the formulas through a spreadsheet:

t v s
0,0000 0,5600 0,000000
0,0001 0,5561 0,000056
0,0002 0,5522 0,000111
0,0003 0,5482 0,000166
0,0004 0,5443 0,000221
0,0005 0,5404 0,000275
0,0006 0,5365 0,000329
0,0007 0,5326 0,000382
0,0008 0,5286 0,000435
0,0009 0,5247 0,000488
0,0010 0,5208 0,000540
0,0011 0,5169 0,000592

So we see: After only 0.0011s, we have exceeded the maximum elastic deformation our spaghetti can bear, at which pint they break.
Velocity is then still 0.5169m/s, or 92% of the initial 0.56m/s

Our accumulated stories can now fall more or less freely for 15.96mm, during which velocity increases to about 0.7609m/s. Then we have another spaghetti crash which will again reduce velocity by only about 8% etc. etc.


Result: We can expect our 6' tower with 522 spaghetti columns and a total mass of 939.6kg to collapse within 10% of free fall speed

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's personal experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones. And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone as we saw on 9/11.

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone. For instance the collapse of the spagetti model will arrest almost immediately. It's intuitive you see ?

[Bell]

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's persona experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones. And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths og the same structure down flat on the ground by graity alone as we saw aon 9/11 and as we see in the spaghetti model.

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed it's other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone.

How is it that you don't understand or react to our explanations on how the top 10% only needed to crush 1 floor, then the top 10% + 1 floor crushed the next floor and so on and so forth. This has been explained to you multiple times.

[DGM]

I see Bill's still trying to sell the "truther" lie.



Bill, no one's buying.

[bill smith]

How is it that you don't understand or react to our explanations on how the top 10% only needed to crush 1 floor, then the top 10% + 1 floor crushed the next floor and so on and so forth. This has been explained to you multiple times.

Then make with the countless other documented examples there must be if this can really happen. I am willing to accept examples from the entire recorded history of planet Earth of any pther of millions of different types of structure where the top one tenth has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same object by gravity alone.

Let's face it....if you cannot do this simple thing then we have no reason to believe that it can happen at all except in a managed way like the deliberate demolitions on 9/11.

[Bell]

Then make with the countless other documented examples there must be if this can happen. I am will to accept examples from the recorded history of planet Earth of any pther of millions of different types of structure where the top one tenth has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same object by gravity alone.

Let's face it....if you cannot do this simple thing then we have no reason to believe that it can happen at all except in a managed way like the deliberate demolitions on 9/11.

:hb:

[DGM]

:hb:
Don't worry about it. He's only talking to himself (and anyone here that's bored to reply).

[Oystein]

Don't worry about it. He's only talking to himself (and anyone here that's bored to reply).

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results. :(


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

[Bell]

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results. :(


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

By the way, I nominated those posts :)

[DGM]

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results. :(


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...
If it's any consolation, some of us here enjoyed the mental exercise.


:D

[bill smith]

I was bored to reply, I took Bill's spaghetti tower with enthusiasm and made it into a valid to-scale model. Unfortunately, Bill seems to not be interested in the model he himself proposed, at least he ignores the specifics (experimental strength of spaghetti columns, required static load per story to scale correctly) and the work and the results. :(


Kinda reminds of.... urrr.... well, the 9/11-Truth-Movement comes to mind: Ridiculous models, no interest in details if they have to do with basic physics, moving goal posts, hand-waving, ignorance, arguments from imagination (or lack thereof), ...

Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ?

[dudalb]

I see bill smith has not changed any in his/her abscence.

[Oystein]

Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ?

Watch the verinage demolition videos once more, and while you do that and observe how story after story gets crushed by the top floors, ask yourself the same question.

Then consider the likelihood that the best conclusion is urrrr "inside job" or whatever it is you want to sell.
And consider the possibility that you do not understand structural engineering and dynamic mechanics.

[Oystein]

By the way, I nominated those posts :)

Where are those nominations? I only follow the Stundies briefly :blush:

[bill smith]

Watch the verinage demolition videos once more, and while you do that and observe how story after story gets crushed by the top floors, ask yourself the same question.

Then consider the likelihood that the best conclusion is urrrr "inside job" or whatever it is you want to sell.
And consider the possibility that you do not understand structural engineering and dynamic mechanics.

Not very convincing are you Oystein ? Eh Readers ?

[Bell]

Where are those nominations? I only follow the Stundies briefly :blush:

Nominations for the Language Award (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76070) in Forum Community. Yours are on page 4.

[Oystein]

Not very convincing are you Oystein ? Eh Readers ?

About as convincing as your previous post. Eh Readers?

Maybe, next time you want make a claim of your own, back it up with facts, list assumptions, do work and discuss results, insteaf of just flinging suggestive questions across the table?

Would be a nice change - seeing a Truther do some real work and get it right.
(Of course "getting it right" would be the same as you finding out that in fact both twin towers and spaghetti towers are doomed to total collapse once you allow one floor to fail completely.)

[bill smith]

About as convincing as your previous post. Eh Readers?

Maybe, next time you want make a claim of your own, back it up with facts, list assumptions, do work and discuss results, insteaf of just flinging suggestive questions across the table?

Would be a nice change - seeing a Truther do some real work and get it right.
(Of course "getting it right" would be the same as you finding out that in fact both twin towers and spaghetti towers are doomed to total collapse once you allow one floor to fail completely.)

[Sigh]..Just answer the dang question if you dare...

' Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ? '

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Not very convincing are you Oystein ?

Aaawwww... does widdle Biwwy need a band-aid?

[Oystein]

Nominations for the Language Award (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76070) in Forum Community. Yours are on page 4.

Language?!?!?!? :jaw-dropp

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Language?!?!?!? :jaw-dropp

An award given by JREF for the most brilliantly written post of the month.

Basically it's the Anti-Stundie.

[Oystein]

[Sigh]..Just answer the dang question if you dare...

' Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ? '

Ok - assembly dropping on assembly.

What's your point?

The assembly of 13 single floors falls (picks up velocity, momentum) as a block.
I guess the assembly consideration is not unimportant. However as long as the assembly is intact, it can push its momentum down on the next stuctural elements it hits. If the assembly comes apart, momentum is not acted against an parts keep falling.
Crush-up occurs.

You can't get away from the fact that once the top floors fall, the structure below must eat away all the momentum and kinetic energy, and will fail doing so.


But I sense you want make a point here? Please make it! Improve on the way I modelled your spaghetti tower! :)

[bill smith]

Ok - assembly dropping on assembly.

What's your point?

The assembly of 13 single floors falls (picks up velocity, momentum) as a block.
I guess the assembly consideration is not unimportant. However as long as the assembly is intact, it can push its momentum down on the next stuctural elements it hits. If the assembly comes apart, momentum is not acted against an parts keep falling.
Crush-up occurs.

You can't get away from the fact that once the top floors fall, the structure below must eat away all the momentum and kinetic energy, and will fail doing so.


But I sense you want make a point here? Please make it! Improve on the way I modelled your spaghetti tower! :)

Well maybe we will revisit this some time Oystein. Block-assembly eh ? Interesting

[TheRedWorm]

No you won't, Bill. You will offer nothing of substance, just continue to spout the same nonsense, and run from questions and points you can't answer.

[bill smith]

No you won't, Bill. You will offer nothing of substance, just continue to spout the same nonsense, and run from questions and points you can't answer.

Well Red we will see in due course, in the fullness of time, at the appropriate juncture. You know how it goes.

[TheRedWorm]

Yeah, it will go exactly how I said it will go. Unless you plan to reveal yourself as a troll, and that you were stringing us along the whole time. That's the only thing I think you could possibly say that would give any of us pause.

[angrysoba]

Oh well, here goes with the response to Oystein's response ("glenn" is the Truther in question) :

Hello Angry,

Jolly decent of you to take the time, may I respond to your responses.

glenn: “…We are expected to believe that as it suddenly (with a flash)lost all its structure and fell onto the floor below, ...”

Angry: ----It doesn't matter at all if the top section above the burning floors lost all their support in a flash or somewhat gradually. All that matters is that a cross-section of the tower crashed (columns/joints buckling and breaking) and the top section picking up some speed as it is accelerated by gravity.----

Actually, it's rather surprising to see such a large flash! But apart of that waving aside of an awkward observation, yourmate added nothing to the discussion there.

glenn: “…how does each new floor suddenly assume the accumulated velocity of the falling floors above?”

Angry: ----Strawman. It doesn not assume the speed, it assumes the momentum, thereby losing some speed (as some of the mass starts out at rest)----

Strawman my arse. If it did _not_ assume the speed, how does your mate account for the fact that we saw acceleration at virtually free-fall speed, which was the actual point? Slippery customer, this mate of yours.

glenn: “We're talking about a progressively heavy core structure (it having been built to bear the weight of the entire structure above, at each stage). So why did it not _substantially_ arrest the downward motion?”

Angry: ----As lower stories became progressively heavy (and strong), so did the weight and the speed of the already falling top part accumulate. So while the static strength of the lower stories increased basically in a linear function, the momentum of the fall increased basically with a function that contains a power of 2 - momentum increased faster than resisting static force.----

Ahem, your mate really needs to stop blowing smoke, and explain why the progression was not _substantially_ arrested. Your learned friend also forgets that a major component of that structure mysteriously turned into fine powder on the way down, so the momentum (weight x speed) of the falling structure was not accumulating to anything approaching the extent he pretends.

glenn:“As Frank Verismo points out, a great deal of the mass was pulverised in any case, so the full weight of the above sections were dispersed each time a new floor was reached by the downward progression.”

Angry: ----When we are looking at conservation of momentum, it doesn't matter if the mass you want to arrest is already pulverized or still structurally intact. If you want to arrest the collapse, you need to arrest the downward momentum of all the masses involved, as it wouldn't do much good to stop the intact parts and let the pulverized parts keep falling (all the way).----

Huh! For crying out loud, that pulverised structure was billowing out over half of Manhattan, not neatly falling in a vacuum tube! Has your
mate observed that under real-world conditions, dust doesn't fall quite the same way as bricks? Jesus!

glenn: “How did the really heavy mid to lower sections suddenly start moving at the same pace as the falling upper sections, unless they were
offering _virtually no resistance at all_ - unless they were already falling themselves immediately before the progression hit them.”

Angry: ----Because the dynamic load of n upper stories at velovity v with mass m is magnitudes greater than the static load these mid to lower
sections were designed to carry. They were designed to excert the upward force of several (3-5?) times the weight of all the floors above, but to arrest these floors within the short distance that the columns still remain elastic would require a force much more than 10 times the weight.----

Your mate has explained why the floors might have collapsed, not why they magically assumed the speed of the falling upper section without
slowing it down. Is your mate fond of answering his preferred questionto that asked?

glenn: “The towers did not come down quite at free-fall speed, but it was not far off it. It was way too close to free-fall acceleration to believe
even for a moment than a substantial structure of increasing strength was being crushed by the powdered remains of the floors above.”

Angry: ----Towers came down around 2/3rds of free fall speed which actually is a considerable distance off. Plus Argument from incredulity.----

Being incredulous at an explanation is not proof that the explanation in question is correct, you know. The precise time is difficult to
say, because the base was surrounded by a plume of dust that your mate thinks is entirely pressing downwards on the structure (and in a neat
column). It goes no way to altering the fact that a mild slowing (which I freely allowed for) is far removed from what we observed.

Think about your famous bowling balls, AS - would you expect it to fall to the bottom of a deep lake almost as fast (2/3rds, say) as it would
through the air? No? Do you think the structure of the towers should have offered even the resistance of water?

glenn: “If the motion was entirely downwards, with no other force than downward gravity operating after collapse was initiated, why do we see
massive steel girders ejected out laterally for hundreds of feet? Why did tiny body parts (sections of finger, etc.) appear on rooftops hundreds of
yards away?”

Angry:----Drop a paper bag full with assorted things (screws, tomatoes, marbles, toys) from your upper floor down onto your terrace. Watch what happens. See how some of the things are flung sideways?----

Your mate is an idiot. If I dropped a sack full of _heavy_ bolts which are not going to be blown around by the wind, they'll land pretty much
below where they are dropped. What made the 40-ton steel girders of the Twin Towers go laterally with such substantial energy - brownian motion, perhaps?

glenn: “In standard building collapses, one would find at least a few things intact. A chair, a monitor, something. How come the biggest items
found were fragments of telephone keypads?”

Angry:----Twin Towers were non-standard building collapses. They were just so very much bigger than anything we've seen so far. Potential energy of one tower, just standing erect, equals that of a formidable nuke. That is as much "standard building collapse" as Hiroshima was "standard bombing".----

Oh, crap. I'll agree on one thing - this was non-standard. But the idea that _nothing_ substantial survived due to this hand-waving explanation
is weak to say the least. Is this guy supposed to be a scientist? He should be ashamed of himself, pretending potential energy was neatly
converted into lossless explosive energy to pulverise everything.

glenn:“Look at the column on the last picture on this page: How did it acquire that precise cut, consistent with a controlled demolition?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm “

Angry:----As has been pointed out before: Welcome to the dark ages of trutherism.----


Angry: (Poster EDx writes: “lol he promotes the thermal lance cut column picture as evidence of thermite lol.”


Uh huh. Do you usually have firemen hanging around like that when a demolition clearance is well underway? So these lance-cutter
boys had rushed in (not bothering to clear a path), cut a bunch of core columns (why?), and rushed off again why firemen were still
scratching their chins at the sight? Uh huh.

glenn: “But back to conservation of momentum. Inertia dictates that a mass will not suddenly assume the velocity of the moving object falling onto it, even if it is so tenuously structured that a feather falling onto it would initiate its collapse. In this case, we are talking about an increasing substantial structure the further down the building we go. Yet it offered little more resistance than fresh air on the day of 9/11.”

Angry: ----Increasing substantial structure met even faster increasing momentum the further down the building we go.----

Which might have achieved some equilibrium what with losing all that structure mass to powder, flying girders an' all, but your mate ignores the point entirely, and is blowing smoke yet again. There is absolutely no way the falling structure would make the floors below assume the VELOCITY (and not just the momentum) and continue the progression.
*

Nice try, maybe worth 2.5/10 and it might even pass as plausible to someone completely ignorant about physics, but please get better help
than this if you seriously want to refute my argument on momentum.

But thank you again for taking the time. I admire your doggedness in sticking up for the Official Story through thick and very, very thin.


A few hours later, the said Truther who goes by the handle "Glenn" added this:

Btw, Angry, how long do you think it'll take for you to relay my reply back to your mates at forums.randi.org, for them to make their various replies, and then for you to compile them all again?

Why are you so utterly uncritical of _their_ replies, while the knee-jerk thing happens for you at every word from an Official Story doubter?

One last thing puzzles me... and you can ask them this (fully attributed, if you don't mind!)... doesn't your nauseating obsequiousness bother them there at all, or do they actually get off on it?

[Oystein]

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's personal experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones.

You are realling appealing to people's incredulity, lack of imagination and scientific laziness.

And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone as we saw on 9/11.

This is something they just cannot know in their bones, for their bones are so extremely tiny compared to the dimensions of the tallest buildings in the world. The dynamics therein utterly defy intuition.


You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone.

You dodge and ignore the examples we already provided, especially that of avalanches.
I give you another: cardstacks. Watch what happens around 2:00:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU28Y3KAGcI

For instance the collapse of the spagetti model will arrest almost immediately. It's intuitive you see ?

It may be intuitive, but it's wrong. If people go only by intuition, they'd understand that the sun moves around the earth. And they'd be wrong. It takes more than intuition, namely some scientific rigor, to figure out that actually it is the spinning of the earth.

But I am fairly certain that Readers' intuition will understand that 6 packs of spaghetti may carry a static load of a whopping 1 ton if you build your tower carefully, but will come down crashing wildly if you break enough pieces near the top, when the weight of 2 grown men starts falling. And that it will continue to crash because it gets the mass of 10 more grown men along the way. Cause you see, that would be the necessary mass for the model to be near scale.

[Dave Rogers]

An award given by JREF for the most brilliantly written post of the month.

Basically it's the Anti-Stundie.

And it has been known to be won by posts in the Conspiracy Theories sections ;).

Dave

[16.5]

"Uh huh. Do you usually have firemen hanging around like that when a demolition clearance is well underway? So these lance-cutter boys had rushed in (not bothering to clear a path), cut a bunch of core columns (why?), and rushed off again why firemen were still scratching their chins at the sight? Uh huh."

What an offensive argument from incredulity. Your friend appears completely unaware that is a cropped picture, and IIRC, you can see a crew working on another vertical beam in the background. And yes, the FDNY was at Ground zero. You might remind your "mate" that hundreds of FDNY firemen died at Ground Zero and were there throughout the recovery activity at the pile.

[angrysoba]

"Uh huh. Do you usually have firemen hanging around like that when a demolition clearance is well underway? So these lance-cutter boys had rushed in (not bothering to clear a path), cut a bunch of core columns (why?), and rushed off again why firemen were still scratching their chins at the sight? Uh huh."

What an offensive argument from incredulity. Your friend appears completely unaware that is a cropped picture, and IIRC, you can see a crew working on another vertical beam in the background. And yes, the FDNY was at Ground zero. You might remind your "mate" that hundreds of FDNY firemen died at Ground Zero and were there throughout the recovery activity at the pile.

I'm not quite sure what he is talking about but I do have a few pictures here of clean-up crews working on the site which I would like to add to:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

Do you know where I could find similar pictures which show the beams being cut?

---I should also have edited that part out of my mate's post because I don't want the focus to be on such easily distracting questions---

[W.D.Clinger]

Oh well, here goes with the response to Oystein's response
He's just confirming T.A.M.'s diagnosis (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6116050&postcount=3). His talk of "blowing smoke" and "Is this guy supposed to be a scientist?" must be psychological projection. He's heard of conservation of momentum, and is using that phrase to project a false air of authority, but he doesn't know how to use conservation of momentum to calculate the effects of an inelastic collision:

Which might have achieved some equilibrium what with losing all that structure mass to powder, flying girders an' all, but your mate ignores the point entirely, and is blowing smoke yet again. There is absolutely no way the falling structure would make the floors below assume the VELOCITY (and not just the momentum) and continue the progression.
*

Nice try, maybe worth 2.5/10 and it might even pass as plausible to someone completely ignorant about physics, but please get better help than this if you seriously want to refute my argument on momentum.

His argument is refuted by a simple calculation based on the law of conservation of momentum. That's first-semester freshman physics.


glenn: “…how does each new floor suddenly assume the accumulated velocity of the falling floors above?”

Angry: ----Strawman.

His question wasn't a strawman so much as idiocy. In particular, his question revealed profound ignorance of freshman physics.

Conservation of momentum tells us that the total momentum of the upper block plus the new floor is the same after their collision as before. The collision was (approximately) inelastic, which means the upper block and the new floor had the same velocity after the collision. Using the mass and velocities of the upper block and the new floor before the collision, you can use the law of conservation of momentum to calculate their velocity after the collision. Because the mass of the new floor was small compared to the mass of the upper block, the velocity of the combined upper block and new floor had to be almost as large as the velocity of the upper block just before the collision. That's physics.

This "glenn" person is just repeating "conservation of momentum" while denying the most basic consequences of that physical law.


It doesn not assume the speed, it assumes the momentum, thereby losing some speed (as some of the mass starts out at rest)----

Strawman my arse. If it did _not_ assume the speed, how does your mate account for the fact that we saw acceleration at virtually free-fall speed, which was the actual point? Slippery customer, this mate of yours.

Your statement there was incorrect. The new floor assumes a small fraction of the momentum of the upper block, thereby assuming most of its speed. That too is physics.

ETA: As I wrote earlier in the thread, and as Oystein has elaborated:

Competent video analysis shows diminutions of velocity considerably in excess of what is predicted by conservation of momentum. In other words, the effect predicted by conservation of momentum was small relative to the reduction in velocity caused by the supporting strength that remained within the compromised structure below.
This glenn person claims the observed loss of velocity was smaller than predicted by the law of conservation of momentum. That's factually incorrect: the loss of velocity was greater.

[Oystein]

...
His argument is refuted by a simple calculation based on the law of conservation of momentum. That's first-semester freshman physics.

In Germany, that is 11th grade high school physics :p

...
...
Your statement there was incorrect. The new floor assumes a small fraction of the momentum of the upper block, thereby assuming most of its speed. That too is physics.

Yes, most of the speed. Not all of it.

Let's denote the top 15 stories with sub-t, and the new 1 story with sub-n, and the two combined as sub-t+n.
Momentum is p, velocity is v, mass is m

Then just before inelastic collision:
mt = 15mn
vt has a certain value
vn = 0
pt = 15mnvt
pn = 0*mn = 0

Just after inelastic collision:
mt+n = mt + mn = 16mn
pt+n = pt + pn = pt (that is the equation for conversation of momentum!)
vt+n = pt+n / mt+n = pt / 16mn = 15mnvt / 16mn = 15/16 * vt
vn(after collision) = vt+n because that is the definition of an inelastic collision; = 15/16 * vt

So the new floor does not pick up the full velocity of the falling block but 15/16th of it. In other words, the top 15 storys only loose 1/16th or 6.25% of their velocity because of the collision.

They lose some more to planet earth by pushing the columns all the way down into the ground; how much is now a somewhat complicated matter that invoves elasticity, conversation of energy, and the many ways that kinetic energy gets converted into heat, deformation, fractures, potential energy (springs) and seismic waves. That's where real scientific papers like the one by Bazant come into play.

[excaza]

Your statement there was incorrect. The new floor assumes a small fraction of the momentum of the upper block, thereby assuming most of its speed. That too is physics.

The body resulting from the inelastic collision of two or more bodies will assume all the momentum of the bodies. Not just some of it.

From your other postings I'm assuming you know that, but your above statement is incorrect. Unless your use of "assumes" is regarding the energy dissipated by the floor breaking its supports.

[16.5]

I'm not quite sure what he is talking about but I do have a few pictures here of clean-up crews working on the site which I would like to add to:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

Do you know where I could find similar pictures which show the beams being cut?

---I should also have edited that part out of my mate's post because I don't want the focus to be on such easily distracting questions---

The picture he is talking about is the second from the bottom on your page. Except it is truther cropped to show only the firman in the middle and the angle cut beam, not the other beams, nor the demolition worker in the background.

I don't know why you'd edit that out, he thinks he can score some cheap points lying about "thermite" and some laughs at the expense of the FDNY? **** him, he gets what he deserves.

[angrysoba]

The picture he is talking about is the second from the bottom on your page. Except it is truther cropped to show only the firman in the middle and the angle cut beam, not the other beams, nor the demolition worker in the background.

I don't know why you'd edit that out, he thinks he can score some cheap points lying about "thermite" and some laughs at the expense of the FDNY? **** him, he gets what he deserves.

I'd edit it out because his "point" distracts from the main discussion which is that of conservation of momentum.

[angrysoba]

Thanks for the feedback, W.D Clinger!

[carlitos]

Angry:----Drop a paper bag full with assorted things (screws, tomatoes, marbles, toys) from your upper floor down onto your terrace. Watch what happens. See how some of the things are flung sideways?----

Your mate is an idiot. If I dropped a sack full of _heavy_ bolts which are not going to be blown around by the wind, they'll land pretty much
below where they are dropped. What made the 40-ton steel girders of the Twin Towers go laterally with such substantial energy - brownian motion, perhaps?
Not that it will help, perhaps you should have said to drop from your upper floor to your terrace, with the bag hitting several tree branches and a patio along the way. The girders being tossed about were not at ground level, so they had a long way to fall (gravity) with whatever sideways force they carried from the collision.

All that aside, I have seen this glenn name before, and I don't think that your dialogue will be productive. I suggest learning a new language or planning a vacation as better uses of your time. :)

[W.D.Clinger]

The body resulting from the inelastic collision of two or more bodies will assume all the momentum of the bodies. Not just some of it.
Yes, that's true of the combined body. If you reread my statement, I think you'll realize I was talking about the fraction of that combined body that corresponds to the previously stationary floor. Your clarification is useful, however, and I thank you for it.

[bill smith]

I'm not quite sure what he is talking about but I do have a few pictures here of clean-up crews working on the site which I would like to add to:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

Do you know where I could find similar pictures which show the beams being cut?

---I should also have edited that part out of my mate's post because I don't want the focus to be on such easily distracting questions---

You should ask your friend whether he thinks the perps would really leave a cut beam like that and whether he doesn't get the taste of red herring ?

[angrysoba]

You should ask your friend whether he thinks the perps would really leave a cut beam like that and whether he doesn't taste a red herring ?

Well, they left all that nanothermite lying around and forgot to put the names of the patsies on the flight manifest so anything's possible, right?

:covereyes

[bill smith]

Well, they left all that nanothermite lying around and forgot to put the names of the patsies on the flight manifest so anything's possible, right?

:covereyes

Well in this case it couldn't be more obvious. You didn't think that the conspiracy theories got started all on their own did you ?

[Bell]

Well in this case it couldn't be more obvious. You didn't think that the conspiracy theories got started all on their own did you ?

No, by crazies like you :)

[triforcharity]

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's personal experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones. And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone as we saw on 9/11.

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone. For instance the collapse of the spagetti model will arrest almost immediately. It's intuitive you see ?

And what if their personal experience is plumbing? Would you trust their judgement on structural engineering? What if they are the pooper-scooper at the circus? Are they also qualified to judge structrual engineering?

No. Of course not Bill. Not one iota. You are appealing to their personal beliefs, not facts.

Now, stop comparing the WTC to a bunch of spagetti.

[triforcharity]

Then make with the countless other documented examples there must be if this can really happen. I am willing to accept examples from the entire recorded history of planet Earth of any pther of millions of different types of structure where the top one tenth has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same object by gravity alone.

Let's face it....if you cannot do this simple thing then we have no reason to believe that it can happen at all except in a managed way like the deliberate demolitions on 9/11.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Officials-Dont-Fear-Anyone-Trapped-in-NJ-Parking-Garage-Collapse-98661744.html

Now, STFU. Gravity alone there sparkplug.

[bill smith]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Officials-Dont-Fear-Anyone-Trapped-in-NJ-Parking-Garage-Collapse-98661744.html

Now, STFU. Gravity alone there sparkplug.

How tall a steel framed hi-rise was that. It's hard to tell from the video

[Horatius]

Then make with the countless other documented examples there must be if this can really happen. I am willing to accept examples from the entire recorded history of planet Earth of any pther of millions of different types of structure where the top one tenth has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same object by gravity alone.

Let's face it....if you cannot do this simple thing then we have no reason to believe that it can happen at all except in a managed way like the deliberate demolitions on 9/11.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Officials-Dont-Fear-Anyone-Trapped-in-NJ-Parking-Garage-Collapse-98661744.html

Now, STFU. Gravity alone there sparkplug.


How tall a steel framed hi-rise was that. It's hard to tell from the video



Watch those goalposts fly!

[bill smith]

Watch those goalposts fly!

How tall to you think it was from the video Horatius ?

[Dog Town]

You didn't think that the conspiracy theories got started all on their own did you ?

Does your "argument", even read the words you type?

[triforcharity]

How tall a steel framed hi-rise was that. It's hard to tell from the video

3 Stories tall IIRC, and it was a concrete structure. But, of course, now you change your requirements. Now it has to be a steel framed structure. But originally, you did not set that requirement.

Here is your post EXACTLY.
Then make with the countless other documented examples there must be if this can really happen. I am willing to accept examples from the entire recorded history of planet Earth of any pther of millions of different types of structure where the top one tenth has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same object by gravity alone.

Let's face it....if you cannot do this simple thing then we have no reason to believe that it can happen at all except in a managed way like the deliberate demolitions on 9/11.


Iv'e hilited and made the relevant parts more noticeable. You even specifically state DIFFERENT TYPES of structures.

Now, I wanna know, honestly, how did you get those goalposts to move so quick?

You must have one of these nifty little inventions.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j182/swiftian/zaius2008l/golaposts2.jpg

[bill smith]

3 Stories tall IIRC, and it was a concrete structure. But, of course, now you change your requirements. Now it has to be a steel framed structure. But originally, you did not set that requirement.

Here is your post EXACTLY.



Iv'e hilited and made the relevant parts more noticeable. You even specifically state DIFFERENT TYPES of structures.

Now, I wanna know, honestly, how did you get those goalposts to move so quick?

You must have one of these nifty little inventions.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j182/swiftian/zaius2008l/golaposts2.jpg


Do you have any more amusing examples tri ? You can choose examples from the last 4,500 million years

[beachnut]

What a *********** idiot.

TAM:)

Typical 911 truth movement mentality; pure stupidity, topped off with insanity.

Next someone will bring up Heiwa's delusional work about 10 percent... oops, bs posts more moronic delusions.

[JohnG]

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's personal experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones. And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone as we saw on 9/11.


The problem is that you appear to (or pretend to?) have the experience and intuition of a young child, where very little of the actual inner-workings of reality seem to square with your observations. Most of us grow out of these delusions (e.g., The Earth appears to be flat, ergo it is flat, The Sun appears to revolve around the Earth, ergo it does revolve around the Earth), but for reasons that probably aren't all your fault, you haven't. I remember as a kid submerging an overturned cup into water and being amazed that the water didn't flood into the empty space, as my "intuition" told me it should. The difference is, unlike you, even then I was objective and dispassionate enough to realize that if my intuition and presuppositions didn't square with my observations and tests (primitive though they were) then chances are, I probably needed to rethink my presuppositions. You, on the other hand perversely hold on to your childish presuppositions like grim death. It's ironic because the cris de coeur of every Truther are "Nothing is as it seems!" and "Trust no one!". You, though for some reason believe that if it seems to you that something can't happen, then you can safely trust yourself that you are correct in your belief. Before you question the beliefs and motivations of others, you must first question your own beliefs and motivations.

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone. For instance the collapse of the spagetti model will arrest almost immediately. It's intuitive you see ?


By your reasoning one domino can't initiate the collapse of 10 or 100 or 1,000,000 dominoes. Even most children "intuitively" grasp the concepts of action/reaction (Newton's third law) as well as the concept that it's always easier to knock a structure down than it was to build it in the first place (The second saw of thermodynamics).

I realize I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said countless times in this thread, but it (sadly) bears repeating.

[bill smith]

The problem is that you appear to (or pretend to?) have the experience and intuition of a young child, where very little of the actual inner-workings of reality seem to square with your observations. Most of us grow out of these delusions (e.g., The Earth appears to be flat, ergo it is flat, The Sun appears to revolve around the Earth, ergo it does revolve around the Earth), but for reasons that probably aren't all your fault, you haven't. I remember as a kid submerging an overturned cup into water and being amazed that the water didn't flood into the empty space, as my "intuition" told me it should. The difference is, unlike you, even then I was objective and dispassionate enough to realize that if my intuition and presuppositions didn't square with my observations and tests (primitive though they were) then chances are, I probably needed to rethink my presuppositions. You, on the other hand perversely hold on to your childish presuppositions like grim death. It's ironic because the cris de coeur of every Truther are "Nothing is as it seems!" and "Trust no one!". You, though for some reason believe that if it seems to you that something can't happen, then you can safely trust yourself that you are correct in your belief. Before you question the beliefs and motivations of others, you must first question your own beliefs and motivations.




By your reasoning one domino can't initiate the collapse of 10 or 100 or 1,000,000 dominoes. Even most children "intuitively" grasp the concepts of action/reaction (Newton's third law) as well as the concept that it's always easier to knock a structure down than it was to build it in the first place (The second saw of thermodynamics).

I realize I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said countless times in this thread, but it (sadly) bears repeating.

One more time can't hurt John.

I guess the readers do not mind you comparing a cascade of freestanding dominos falling over in the horizontal plane to the vertical ollapse of a 110-story skyscraper.

But I hope I am wrong about that.

[Dog Town]

But I could be wrong about that.

Why should today be any different!

[Bell]

Do you have any more amusing examples tri ? You can choose examples from the last 4,500 million years

Bill, please explain the importance of an event happening for the first time or happened before? Because I know you are not that stupid to be claiming when something happens for the first time it means it could not have happened since it never happened before. Right?

[JohnG]

One more time can't hurt John.

I guess the readers do not mind you comparing a cascade of freestanding dominos falling over in the horizontal plane to the vertical ollapse of a 110-story skyscraper.

But I hope I am wrong about that.


Where I think you are going wrong in regards to your inability to accept how the structural failure of 10% of a skyscraper can result in the failure of the remaining 90% can be summed up in the following example which again uses the domino analogy:

A person tries to determine how much energy is required for one domino to topple nine other dominoes. He first figures out the minimum amount of force required to knock over a single domino. In other words, just enough force to unbalance the domino and let gravity take over. Then he multiplies that result times nine. When he looks at the results he concludes that a single domino can not exert sufficient force knock over the other nine. Pleased with himself at this groundbreaking discovery, he tests his theory by lining up 10 dominoes and gently knocking the first one over. To his bemused consternation, all 10 dominoes fall over, one after the other in less than a second.

Can you spot where he made his false assumption?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's another model

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 6-stick bundles to represent the stronger core columns spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally, lift up the top (and lightest) 10% (C) of the model and drop it say 12'' onto the lower 90% (A).

Will the top 10% (C) crush the lower 90% (A) right down flat on the ground ?

That is what happened at the WTC on 9/11 for the first time on the recorded history of the Planet Earth and not only once but twice in an hour.
One more time can't hurt John.

I guess the readers do not mind you comparing a cascade of freestanding dominos falling over in the horizontal plane to the vertical ollapse of a 110-story skyscraper.

But I hope I am wrong about that.

Intellectual hypocrite.

[triforcharity]

Do you have any more amusing examples tri ? You can choose examples from the last 4,500 million years

That is not an actual number there Bill.
Now, admit that I have shown what you asked for, or shift those goalposts some more. Stop trying to avoid the subject.

[leftysergeant]

If 10% of an item can crush the lower and stronger 90% of the same structure by gravity alone then you will surely be able to show the readers other examples of this happening. Choose any example from the recorded history of this planet

Howe many times do we have to tell you and idiots like Gage that ten percent of the buiolding only needed to cruch one percent of the building to initiate collapse, then picked up another one percent of the weight which then crushed the next one percent and so on all the way to the bottom.

Don't try to tell me that idiot boy's cardboard boxes in any way resemble the towers. The walls of the boxes are homogeneous objects. The perimeter columns of the towers were bolted segments held upright by the floor slabs, which were successively over-loaded and broken.

Derrrrr....

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hey Bill, when you get a chance, I'd like to see you explain why spaghetti is ok but dominoes are not.

[bill smith]

Howe many times do we have to tell you and idiots like Gage that ten percent of the buiolding only needed to cruch one percent of the building to initiate collapse, then picked up another one percent of the weight which then crushed the next one percent and so on all the way to the bottom.

Don't try to tell me that idiot boy's cardboard boxes in any way resemble the towers. The walls of the boxes are homogeneous objects. The perimeter columns of the towers were bolted segments held upright by the floor slabs, which were successively over-loaded and broken.

Derrrrr....
Hey there Sarge. Nah you have it all wrong.. this is the way to look at it.

.when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ? '

So one floor meets one floor at a time and with equal force according to Newton's famous and inviolable Law Each time the 13 floors reduce by one. Soon there are none. But there are still more than 80 floors of WTC1 left.

But in the real world we all know what should happen without the explosives/incendiaries....collapse arrest.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Still waiting for you to justify your domino/spaghetti hypocrisy, Bill.

[bill smith]

Still waiting for you to justify your domino/spaghetti hypocrisy, Bill.

Do you have a copy of that Richard Gage video with the kid's music ?

[excaza]

Do you have a copy of that Richard Gage video with the kid's music ?

dodge noted

[bill smith]

dodge noted

Do you have a copy for me ? Jeez what kind of debunkers are you ? Normally you are falling over yourselves to show it.

[excaza]

Do you have a copy for me ? Jeez what kind of debunkers are you ? Normally you are falling over yourselves to show it.

Why should I care? It's not relevant to your argument, and serves only as a dodge on your part.

[bill smith]

Why should I care? It's not relevant to your argument, and serves only as a dodge on your part.

How do you know it's not relevent to my argument ? Come up with the video and find out.

[excaza]

Why should I do your work for you? It's your argument, do it yourself. Google isn't that hard.

[bill smith]

Why should I do your work for you? It's your argument, do it yourself. Google isn't that hard.

Jeez you sound like you are walking on eggshells. You don't have to be afraid. I don't bite.

[excaza]

Waiting...

[Oystein]

Hey Bill, when you get a chance, I'd like to see you explain why spaghetti is ok but dominoes are not.

As I have shown, spaghetti is great.

Bill hasn't addressed the spaghetti modelling issues so far that I have pointed out. Especially the consideration that his spaghetti model would have to have a mass of at least one metric ton to be roughly to scale, and that the initial failure would involve the mass of two grown men falling on top of 6 pounds of spaghetti.

[Oystein]

Jeez youI sound like you are I am walking on eggshells. YouI don't have to be afraid. IY'all don't bite.

ftfy

[bill smith]

Waiting...
Just hang on there for a while.....I'm looking

[bill smith]

...par la fenêtre.

[TheRedWorm]

Just hang on there for a while.....I'm looking


Then stop posting here until you find it, Bill.

[triforcharity]

Hey there Sarge. Nah you have it all wrong.. this is the way to look at it.

.when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ? '

So one floor meets one floor at a time and with equal force according to Newton's famous and inviolable Law Each time the 13 floors reduce by one. Soon there are none. But there are still more than 80 floors of WTC1 left.

But in the real world we all know what should happen without the explosives/incendiaries....collapse arrest.

Where did those floors go Bill? You say that an assembly of 13 floors collided with an assembly of 97 floors. So, using your logic, there are not 12 floors and 96 floors left. Where did those two floors go?

[triforcharity]

Hey Bill, my post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6135927#post6135927 is still waiting for you.

[bill smith]

Where did those floors go Bill? You say that an assembly of 13 floors collided with an assembly of 97 floors. So, using your logic, there are not 12 floors and 96 floors left. Where did those two floors go?

They were smashed into dust and small rubble that fell on the lower, much bigger and stronger part with much of it cascading over the edges. The dust component rolled away in the fresh air as we all saw and any bits that came to rest struck with ther own individual small masses and were carried by the structure below that had carried them anyway for the previous 40 years. Not so complicated really.

[triforcharity]

They were smashed into dust and small rubble that fell on the lower, much bigger and stronger part with much of it cascading over the edges. The dust component rolled away in the fresh air as we all saw and any bits that came to rest struck with ther own individual small masses and were carried by the structure below that had carried them anyway for the previous 40 years. Not so complicated really.

You don't actually believe that **** do you Bill?

The idiocity in that post is staggering.

[Dog Town]

As I have shown, spaghetti is great.

Bill hasn't addressed the spaghetti modelling issues so far that I have pointed out. Especially the consideration that his spaghetti model would have to have a mass of at least one metric ton to be roughly to scale, and that the initial failure would involve the mass of two grown men falling on top of 6 pounds of spaghetti.

Yes, he'll run like Forrest Gump, legs a flailing to and fro. How embarrassing to suggest a model that proves his own failed ideas horribly wrong. You gotta love unintentional twoofer humor in the morning!


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/109234699fe7de0c94.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7037)

[sheeplesnshills]

They were smashed into dust and small rubble that fell on the lower, much bigger and stronger part with much of it cascading over the edges. The dust component rolled away in the fresh air as we all saw and any bits that came to rest struck with ther own individual small masses and were carried by the structure below that had carried them anyway for the previous 40 years. Not so complicated really.

What was the factor of safety of the floor supports? typically they are about 2X in buildings....ie the floor supports are twice as strong as they need to be to support the STATIC load of the actual floor and its contents.....

so if you gently lowered the floor above onto one floor it would stay up however if you drop that floor onto the one below then the DYNAMIC load is much higher and the floor would fail and the two floors would fall onto the the floor below.......and so on until you run out of floors.

The now unrestrained exterior and central columns buckle or their joints fail and they peel away and collapse just behind the floors.

there is some loss of mass due to dust etc but the vast majority would just keep adding mass to the falling floors .

This is all so elementary to anyone with an tech education...........

[excaza]

This is all so elementary to anyone with an tech education...........

No tech education needed, all that is needed is for you to have tried to catch something.

[sheeplesnshills]

and any bits that came to rest struck with ther own individual small masses and were carried by the structure below that had carried them anyway for the previous 40 years.

The weight of each floor was supported by the columns, with the floor mounting brackets designed just to support the weight of just one floor (and could support two maybe three as a static load with their safety factor)

Its the strength of the individual floor brackets that matters, not the strength of the supporting columns. In fact if anything the strong columns made things worse as they contained the mass of the collapsing floors allowing little to fall off to one side. They were the "cylinder" to the the floors "piston"

[Regnad Kcin]

'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's personal experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones. And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone as we saw on 9/11.

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone. For instance the collapse of the spagetti model will arrest almost immediately. It's intuitive you see ?Do you take strange pleasure in embarrassing yourself?

[bill smith]

Do you take strange pleasure in embarrassing yourself?

Why don't you try to prove me wrong by coming up with an example that is not the usual debunker rubbish ?

[Regnad Kcin]

Fine, though I presuppose you will refuse to budge from your "inside job" (which is a 100% impossibility, BTW) thinking....one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure...Each of the Twin Towers, nor any large fraction of the buildings, was not an "object" insofar as you are pretending to argue. Your wish to appeal to "common sense" that 1/10 is smaller than 9/10, therefore making it such that it "never" could happen is flawed on its face. Try not to view the Twins as they were from afar, but rather inside their walls.

Also, any building is not a static object; it is, by successful design, winning the struggle against the constant and immense force of gravity. This is true whether the building is under construction, or hundreds of years completed. They are built to a safety standard, but if that is exceeded, as it would be when such a large load as an upper portion collapses on successive support structures, the entirely expected happens.

An example you may have read in these forums: Go to the gym and lift a weighted barbell over your head, the heaviest you can manage. Let's say it's 175 lbs. Now imagine holding the same aloft with a broken wrist.

Lastly, I notice your use of "gravity alone." You wouldn't be trying to minimize such a powerful force, would you?

[bill smith]

Fine, though I presuppose you will refuse to budge from your "inside job" (which is a 100% impossibility, BTW) thinking.Each of the Twin Towers, nor any large fraction of the buildings, was not an "object" insofar as you are pretending to argue. Your wish to appeal to "common sense" that 1/10 is smaller than 9/10, therefore making it such that it "never" could happen is flawed on its face. Try not to view the Twins as they were from afar, but rather inside their walls.

Also, any building is not a static object; it is, by successful design, winning the struggle against the constant and immense force of gravity. This is true whether the building is under construction, or hundreds of years completed. They are built to a safety standard, but if that is exceeded, as it would be when such a large load as an upper portion collapses on successive support structures, the entirely expected happens.

An example you may have read in these forums: Go to the gym and lift a weighted barbell over your head, the heaviest you can manage. Let's say it's 175 lbs. Now imagine holding the same aloft with a broken wrist.

Lastly, I notice your use of "gravity alone." You wouldn't be trying to minimize such a powerful force, would you?

So where are the other examples I asked for that you may draw on from the entire recorded history of the planet Earth that demonstrate what you say ?

I really can't be nbothered with rubbish like this.

[TheRedWorm]

You continually ignore the point that the top 10th did not have to crush the other 90% all in one go, it only had to crush the floor below.

[angrysoba]

So where are the other examples I asked for that you may draw on from the entire recorded history of the planet Earth that demonstrate what you say ?

I really can't be nbothered with rubbish like this.

The problem with this challenge Bill is that has such arbitrary conditions.

This is very similar to David Ray Griffin's formula for attempting to apply empirical reasoning to the collapse of the World Trade Center. It goes like this "X has never happened before. Therefore X is impossible".

Surely, anyone could think of a counter-example that would show this form of reasoning to be false.

Spain just won the World Cup in South Africa. Before they won a lot of "expert" pundits "predicted" they would win but would face strong opposition from other "expert" pundits who pointed out that Spain have never won before so they can't win the World Cup this time.

Yet the Truthers believe they are on firmer ground when talking about a more scientific field such as structural engineering and don't let a complete dearth of knowledge of the subject deter them from making grand claims such as, "No steel-framed building has ever in the history of the universe ever been destroyed by fire therefore we can confidently conclude that it cannot happen."

When it is pointed out that McCormick Place was destroyed by fire, the parameters change:

The 1960 exposition hall was destroyed in a spectacular 1967 fire, despite being thought fireproof by virtue of its steel and concrete construction. At the time of the fire, the building contained highly flammable exhibits, several hydrants were shut off, and the sprinklers proved inadequate suppression.

Then, despite the formula "Any given X has never happened therefore any given X cannot happen" was shown to be fallacious at least as far back as 1967, the Truthers decided that it is true if "any given X" is replaced with the arbitrary condition of "no steel-framed highrise building".

It's not clear to me what adding "highrise" to the formula actually changes but it was argued that it defies the conservation of momentum as there is not enough material at the top of the building to crush down the bottom of the building so the crushdown should be arrested and/or the top of the building should topple over and leave a big stump of a building remaining. Yet, some of the verinage videos show that the buildings being demolished there do not topple over and that they can indeed crush down the bottom of the building even when the collapse is initiated from way above the half-way point.

[Telltale Tom]

The problem with this challenge Bill is that has such arbitrary conditions.

This is very similar to David Ray Griffin's formula for attempting to apply empirical reasoning to the collapse of the World Trade Center. It goes like this "X has never happened before. Therefore X is impossible".

Surely, anyone could think of a counter-example that would show this form of reasoning to be false.

Spain just won the World Cup in South Africa. Before they won a lot of "expert" pundits "predicted" they would win but would face strong opposition from other "expert" pundits who pointed out that Spain have never won before so they can't win the World Cup this time.

Yet the Truthers believe they are on firmer ground when talking about a more scientific field such as structural engineering and don't let a complete dearth of knowledge of the subject deter them from making grand claims such as, "No steel-framed building has ever in the history of the universe ever been destroyed by fire therefore we can confidently conclude that it cannot happen."

When it is pointed out that McCormick Place was destroyed by fire, the parameters change:



Then, despite the formula "Any given X has never happened therefore any given X cannot happen" was shown to be fallacious at least as far back as 1967, the Truthers decided that it is true if "any given X" is replaced with the arbitrary condition of "no steel-framed highrise building".

It's not clear to me what adding "highrise" to the formula actually changes but it was argued that it defies the conservation of momentum as there is not enough material at the top of the building to crush down the bottom of the building so the crushdown should be arrested and/or the top of the building should topple over and leave a big stump of a building remaining. Yet, some of the verinage videos show that the buildings being demolished there do not topple over and that they can indeed crush down the bottom of the building even when the collapse is initiated from way above the half-way point.

Very interesting post above.

And taking the world cup analogy one step forard I know how we can prove the the CD once and for all. We just need Paul the Octopos to chose either NIST or CD.

And if it choses CD then I think the argument will be settled.

[angrysoba]

Very interesting post above.

And taking the world cup analogy one step forard I know how we can prove the the CD once and for all. We just need Paul the Octopos to chose either NIST or CD.

And if it choses CD then I think the argument will be settled.

And if he chooses NIST we'll know who the conspirators are!:jaw-dropp

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080213NaziOctopus1938.jpg

[/twoof]

[alienentity]

Very interesting post above.

And taking the world cup analogy one step forard I know how we can prove the the CD once and for all. We just need Paul the Octopos to chose either NIST or CD.

And if it choses CD then I think the argument will be settled.

Personally I find Ouija boards far more accurate. When combined with divining rods you just can't miss.

[Bell]

So where are the other examples I asked for that you may draw on from the entire recorded history of the planet Earth that demonstrate what you say ?

I really can't be nbothered with rubbish like this.

You really really really don't care about our answers, do you? We have explained all your failed logic (1/10th can't crush 9/10, first time in history...) multiple times to you, but you either are unable to process anything presented to you (in which case you should seek out a doctor) or you just choose to ignore all our answers, which frankly is very rude and disrespectful to all the members that put their time and effort into answering you.

[Captain_Swoop]

Back to the Spaghetti model tower. BillSmith, are you totaly unaware that mass doesn't scale in the way you think it does. A1 Class Pacific the Flying Scotsman weighs 97 and a half tons Tons. I have a cast and etched metal model of the Scotsman in 'OO' 1/72 scale. If scale worked as you think it should weight well over a ton in fact it weighs about 2 pounds.

Dropping some spaghetti on some more spaghetti will not replicate the collapse of one of the towers.

[dafydd]

You don't actually believe that **** do you Bill?

The idiocity in that post is staggering.

He doesn't believe it,but he has to compete with Telltale Tom for the title of Best Troll.

[bill smith]

Back to the Spaghetti model tower. BillSmith, are you totaly unaware that mass doesn't scale in the way you think it does. A1 Class Pacific the Flying Scotsman weighs 97 and a half tons Tons. I have a cast and etched metal model of the Scotsman in 'OO' 1/72 scale. If scale worked as you think it should weight well over a ton in fact it weighs about 2 pounds.

Dropping some spaghetti on some more spaghetti will not replicate the collapse of one of the towers.

It doesn't have to be a perfect model. Just good enough for people to get a clear picture in their minds about the top and lightest one tenth of a structure not crushing the lower and stronger nine-tenths of the same structure down flat n the ground by gravity alone after a small drop.

The model works beautiifully in that regard and I will be improving it in due course.

[Bell]

It doesn't have to be a perfect model. Just good enough for people to get a clear picture in their minds about the top and lightest one tenth of a structure not crushing the lower and stronger nine-tenths of the same structure down flat n the ground by gravity alone after a small drop.

The model works beautiifully in that regard and I will be improving it in due course.

Complete failure by you to understand anything anyone posts to you noted. Really Bill, you are really not interested, are you? Why post here if you don't care about the responses?

[angrysoba]

It doesn't have to be a perfect model. Just good enough for people to get a clear picture in their minds about the top and lightest one tenth of a structure not crushing the lower and stronger nine-tenths of the same structure down flat n the ground by gravity alone after a small drop.

The model works beautiifully in that regard and I will be improving it in due course.

Using linguine perhaps?

I think you should get this model off to Richard Gage. I'd LOVE to see him present it in a debate.

[bill smith]

Using linguine perhaps?

I think you should get this model off to Richard Gage. I'd LOVE to see him present it in a debate.

The model I would like Richard Gage to have is a lego scale model.
6 feet 6 inches tall or so and with scaled photos stuck on so that the building looked wuthentic. Then he could unplug the top one-tenth and show people the 85%-plus of columns that still connected the upper one-tenth to the lower nine-tenths in WTC1 after the plane crash and fires.

But I think that the image alone would tell viewers all they need to know. I don't really think he would need to belabour the point.

[Dog Town]

The model I would like richard Gage to have is a lego scale model.
6 feet 6 inches tall or so and with scaled photos stuck on so that the building looked wuthentic. Then he could unplug the top one-tenth and show people the 85%-plus of columns that still connected the upper one tenth to the lower nine-tenths in WTC1 after the plane crash and fires.

But I think that the image alone would tell viewers all they need to know. I don't relly think he would need to belabour the point.

Why is it twoofers can't grasp scale? Does it so totally destroy their illusions?
Don't bother answering BS. The readers already know!

[angrysoba]

The model I would like Richard Gage to have is a lego scale model.
6 feet 6 inches tall or so and with scaled photos stuck on so that the building looked wuthentic. Then he could unplug the top one-tenth and show people the 85%-plus of columns that still connected the upper one-tenth to the lower nine-tenths in WTC1 after the plane crash and fires.

But I think that the image alone would tell viewers all they need to know. I don't really think he would need to belabour the point.

Weren't the cardboard boxes "woothentic" enough?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The model I would like Richard Gage to have is a lego scale model.
6 feet 6 inches tall or so and with scaled photos stuck on so that the building looked wuthentic. Then he could unplug the top one-tenth and show people the 85%-plus of columns that still connected the upper one-tenth to the lower nine-tenths in WTC1 after the plane crash and fires.

But I think that the image alone would tell viewers all they need to know. I don't really think he would need to belabour the point.

Lego World already has WTC models built out of legos. Where have you been Bill, frozen in carbonite all this time??

[bill smith]

Delete: Moved to another thread. See hyperlink

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6146879&postcount=309 hyperlink

[excaza]

Yeah, that's a perfect representation of the structural properties of the WTC. :rolleyes:

[bill smith]

Yeah, that's a perfect representation of the structural properties of the WTC. :rolleyes:

Richard would of course it make quite clear that he is not making that claim. But I think it could be massively effective anyway..

[Oystein]

Very interesting post above.

And taking the world cup analogy one step forard I know how we can prove the the CD once and for all. We just need Paul the Octopos to chose either NIST or CD.

And if it choses CD then I think the argument will be settled.



And if he chooses NIST we'll know who the conspirators are!:jaw-dropp

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080213NaziOctopus1938.jpg

[/twoof]

LMAO

Dang, how can one nominate two posts in conjunction for the language award??

[Oystein]

It doesn't have to be a perfect model. Just good enough for people to get a clear picture in their minds about the top and lightest one tenth of a structure not crushing the lower and stronger nine-tenths of the same structure down flat n the ground by gravity alone after a small drop.

The model works beautiifully in that regard and I will be improving it in due course.

Hopefully your improvement will contain such elements as "total mass of spaghetti tower >= 1 metric ton footnote", "columns modelled using 6 pounds of spaghetti", "top part that falls on lower part weighs >= 150kg, or the equivalent of 2 grown men falling footnote".

If so, then people would indeed get a clear picture in their minds, namely that two men falling on 6 packs of dispersed spahghetti will crash through to a painful ground.



footnote: the 1 metric ton and 150kg are very low estimates. Derived at by taking a low value for the strength of spaghetti and a high value of 5 for the safety factor of the support columns with regard to static loads. A high estimate might yield 6 to 8 times the masses I gave

[bill smith]

Hopefully your improvement will contain such elements as "total mass of spaghetti tower >= 1 metric ton footnote", "columns modelled using 6 pounds of spaghetti", "top part that falls on lower part weighs >= 150kg, or the equivalent of 2 grown men falling footnote".

If so, then people would indeed get a clear picture in their minds, namely that two men falling on 6 packs of dispersed spahghetti will crash through to a painful ground.



footnote: the 1 metric ton and 150kg are very low estimates. Derived at by taking a low value for the strength of spaghetti and a high value of 5 for the safety factor of the support columns with regard to static loads. A high estimate might yield 6 to 8 times the masses I gave

It's fascinating isn't it ? Maybe the readers will have a look at that after they consult their own intuition.

[Oystein]

The model I would like Richard Gage to have is a lego scale model.
6 feet 6 inches tall or so and with scaled photos stuck on so that the building looked wuthentic. Then he could unplug the top one-tenth and show people the 85%-plus of columns that still connected the upper one-tenth to the lower nine-tenths in WTC1 after the plane crash and fires.

But I think that the image alone would tell viewers all they need to know. I don't really think he would need to belabour the point.

Assuming that lego is a lot stronger than spaghetti, that model would have to have a mass of many many tons.
Good luck figuring out just how many. I suppose your lego tower could support a tank. Static load.
So drop a tank on it, and people will understand.

[bill smith]

Assuming that lego is a lot stronger than spaghetti, that model would have to have a mass of many many tons.
Good luck figuring out just how many. I suppose your lego tower could support a tank. Static load.
So drop a tank on it, and people will understand.
'
How many tons would a lego WTC1 model 6' 6'' weigh ? ' Many many tons ' you said ? Watch this readers..

[Oystein]

It's fascinating isn't it ? Maybe the readers will have a look at that after they consult their own intuition.

The smart readers understand scale. They understand why a flea can jump many hundreds of times its own height, most humans jump half their height, elephants can't jump at all and whales die when stranded.

Or why ants can carry a hundred times their body weight, humans only about their own, and elephants only a fraction.


You must be hoping for the erroneous intuition of dumb readers

[T.A.M.]

let me ask you this bill, if we were to build 2 floors of the WTC from the ground up, and then rest the block of floors that were above the impact zone atop them, would they be any more or less capable of holding the load of those floors then if we built lets say 50 floors from the ground up and laid the block of floors atop them?

In there, lies your answer.

TAM:)

edit: note, this is a simple model which does not even take into account the added forces of wind.

[bill smith]

The smart readers understand scale. They understand why a flea can jump many hundreds of times its own height, most humans jump half their height, elephants can't jump at all and whales die when stranded.

Or why ants can carry a hundred times their body weight, humans only about their own, and elephants only a fraction.


You must be hoping for the erroneous intuition of dumb readers


Well we shall see..

[T.A.M.]

you see bill, the top section crushed the single floor below the impact zone. This floor, and the top section then together, as a new and larger mass crushed the floor beneath it. As this went on, the mass and momentum was so overwhelming, that multiple floors were crushed at a time, and these floors added to the ever increasing mass of the top section, creating even more momentum, and so on and so on...

do you fail to understand that concept?

TAM:)

[bill smith]

let me ask you this bill, if we were to build 2 floors of the WTC from the ground up, and then rest the block of floors that were above the impact zone atop them, would they be any more or less capable of holding the load of those floors then if we built lets say 50 floors from the ground up and laid the block of floors atop them?

In there, lies your answer.

TAM:)

edit: note, this is a simple model which does not even take into account the added forces of wind.

You mean like a 12-story building ? Sure, no problem.

[bill smith]

you see bill, the top section crushed the single floor below the impact zone. This floor, and the top section then together, as a new and larger mass crushed the floor beneath it. As this went on, the mass and momentum was so overwhelming, that multiple floors were crushed at a time, and these floors added to the ever increasing mass of the top section, creating even more momentum, and so on and so on...

do you fail to understand that concept?

TAM:)

Actually that reminds me. Richard should make a ' top block ' module that shows as 13 single floors so that he can illustrate clearly that one upper floor stikes one lower floor at a time and with exactly the same force acording to Newton's inviolable law. Resulting in annihilation of both floors of course. And then it's 'bring on the next two''.

[T.A.M.]

You men like a 12-story building ? Sure, no problem.

The buildings were not solid objects they were hollow layers 12 feet high each, stacked atop each other. The downward accelerating mass of the top section only had to crush one such layer to get things going, once the momentum begins, there is no stopping it unless the forces acting up, are greater then the forces acting down...on the Next SINGLE layer...and so on.

Why do truthers fail to grasp these things?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Actually that reminds me. Richard should make a ' top block ' module that shows as 13 single floors so that he can illustrate clearly that one upper floor stikes one lower floor at a time and with exactly the same force acording to Newton's inviolable law. Resulting in annihilation of both floors of course. And then it's 'bring on the next two''.

Yes and what he fails to realize is that crushing aside, the mass of the top part continues to get bigger, continues to accelerate...crushed or not.

TAM:)

[Captain_Swoop]

I already gave a good example of why Lego isn't a good simulation without a lot of extra weight.

I have a model railway loco that is to 1/72 scale. it's built from a kit of cast and etched metal parts. It weighs about 2 lb the real thing weighs over 90 tons. If the weight was to scale it would weigh over a ton. Your 6 foot high scale model would have to weigh well over a ton to even come close to the scale weight.

[bill smith]

Yes and what he fails to realize is that crushing aside, the mass of the top part continues to get bigger, continues to accelerate...crushed or not.

TAM:)

Or, as is far more logical the bottom part gets bigger as the upper part wears away.After all the lower part is almost ten times bigger than the upper part and is more strongly built.