Prove to me that the collapses did not look right

[000063]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

...
In order to believe that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were high speed total collapses triggered by the ultimate effects of fire, it is necessary to accept that fire was able to far out perform controlled demolition technology.

WTC2 is of particular interest, in that 56 minutes after aircraft impact, it was supposedly induced by fire to perform a high speed collapse.

...

Ultimate effects of fire and impact.

I like how you strawman it in the same sentence when you mention it was hit by a plane.

Also, fire can and does bring down buildings faster than CD specifically because it is uncontrolled.

Of course, if you're asserting WTC 7 was a CD, that means that the debris that hti it and started the fires was either aimed at it--which is impossible--or the charges were already in the building which just happened to be hit by debris which started the fires and gave them an excuse. One wonders why the charges were in the building if the conspirators didn't know they would need to collapse. And they couldn't have planned something else which went awry, such as the Shanksville plane hitting WTC 7, because the damage and collapse pattern from a plane impact wold be very different. In fact, it would be difficult to strike WTC 7 with a plane in the first place.

And, of course, you have the self-destructing casings, wiring, and charges.

And then the difficulty of secretly rigging the building, using an experimental, untested method of demolition, that has to work perfectly the first time, the second time, and the third time, after being exposed to fire extensively.

I note that you're dodging the question of your falsifiability conditions. You don't know what it would look like if you were wrong (as you are) so you just say that it doesn't look "right", while you don't know what actually would look "right".

[000063]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Nonsense, at least three have done so. WTC1, 2 and 7.

We have a tiny data set of high rises that have had major fires, and an even smaller data set of those that had the same design as the WTC towers and had unfought fires.

100% of those designed like the WTC towers and that suffered unfought fires all collapsed.

That another building of a different design did not fail during a fought fire is utterly irrelevent.

Mostly from fires. Few of the other buildings were hit by jumbo jets, or hit by debris falling from collapsing buildings hit by jumbo jets.

There's a reason truthers don't like to talk about how the WTC 7 fires were set; because it means they have to address the question of how the bad guys knew the debris was going to hit 7, which leads directly to logical inconsistencies, as mentioned in my previous post. So they talk about the fire as if it sprang from the ether. I'm betting MM will ignore the points I raised.

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

.....
But, just because we do not know what an unprecedented collapse would look like, does not mean that we cannot make some reasonable assumptions about what it CANNOT LOOK LIKE.

You need to define and quantify what it cannot look like so that the difference between CD and Non-CD collapses can be tested.

.....

Quote:

In order to believe that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were high speed total collapses triggered by the ultimate effects of fire, it is necessary to accept that fire was able to far out perform controlled demolition technology.

WTC2 is of particular interest, in that 56 minutes after aircraft impact, it was supposedly induced by fire to perform a high speed collapse.

56 minutes for burning office furnishings to supposedly make the structural steel totally and rapidly fail.

You need to define and quantify what a high speed collapse is so that the difference between CD and Non-CD collapses can be tested.

Quote:

Why I find this especially interesting, is that there was a long period where a heavy flow of molten steel was falling from a critical corner where the collapse was initiated.

10-20 seconds after this flow of molten steel ceased, the collapse began.

Coincidence?

I do not believe so.

The result of thermite and not ordinary fire?

Yes.

MM

You need to prove that
1. this flow was steel and exclude other materials,
2. no other building that fails in a fire produces molten materials,

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

2. no other building that fails in a fire produces molten materials,

And that no other material looks like "molten material" when viewed falling from a distance.

[leftysergeant]

The molten flow from the corner of the tower passes very quickly from a yellow glow to a dull grey. Steel would go through a more gradual change, and should still be red for a good distance down the side of the building.

Aluminum is known to give up its heat rather more quickly than steel.

Since it takes a very hot fire to get aluminum to glow, it is likely that it exited at a temperature very close to that temperature. Thus, it need not have cooled much to go dull. Steel would take much longer.

[Robrob]

Nooooooo, not facts!

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

The molten flow from the corner of the tower passes very quickly from a yellow glow to a dull grey. Steel would go through a more gradual change, and should still be red for a good distance down the side of the building.

Aluminum is known to give up its heat rather more quickly than steel.

Since it takes a very hot fire to get aluminum to glow, it is likely that it exited at a temperature very close to that temperature. Thus, it need not have cooled much to go dull. Steel would take much longer.

Originally Posted by Robrob

Nooooooo, not facts!

Isn't it interesting that our trolls are having to recycle these old myths.

The "molten steel" claim is a classic example of how truthers (in the past and more likely trolls these days) take one bit of technical fact totally devoid of any context.

Let's pretend for a few minutes that the molten stuff falling from the tower was steel. And it was the result of thermite being used in a CD.

What are the prerequisites of such an occurrence? Two will do:

1) if it was the accumulation of steel which had been melted by thermite as part of a cd how did it all get to that one point? If dozens of columns had been cut by thermite it would need catch trays and channelling to carry the molten steel from multiple points in the building to one point of discharge. Following through this track quickly shows that the idea is ridiculous.
(a) How do you keep each of those bits of a few pounds of steel molten as it flows hundreds of feet across the building to join the big pool near the corner?
(b) How do you ensure that all the catch trays and channels are in place. (The most viable being a team of fire suited suicide workers placing the catch trays/channels after the impact and whilst fire is raging to act as a cover. Gets silly very quickly doesn't it?)

Then if it wasn't from thermite used in CD it is:

2) an independent exercise with steel and thermite brought together near that corner and used to produce the falling molten steel. Why? Simply for a display?? (And that one probably needs the fire suited suicide team also )

So typical of most truther/troll idiotic claims - the single point they raise possibly makes a modicum of sense BUT as soon as you try to fit context it rapidly becomes ridiculous.

And that is only one of many typical truther claims.

Can anyone think of ANY truther claim that can be put into a legitimate context? I'm not aware of any --- and they have had ten years to think them up.

So it is no wonder that "they" refuse to give full explanations --- set in legitimate context.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Isn't it interesting that our trolls are having to recycle these old myths.

The "molten steel" claim is a classic example of how truthers (in the past and more likely trolls these days) take one bit of technical fact totally devoid of any context.

Let's pretend for a few minutes that the molten stuff falling from the tower was steel. And it was the result of thermite being used in a CD.

What are the prerequisites of such an occurrence? Two will do:

1) if it was the accumulation of steel which had been melted by thermite as part of a cd how did it all get to that one point? If dozens of columns had been cut by thermite it would need catch trays and channelling to carry the molten steel from multiple points in the building to one point of discharge. Following through this track quickly shows that the idea is ridiculous.
(a) How do you keep each of those bits of a few pounds of steel molten as it flows hundreds of feet across the building to join the big pool near the corner?
(b) How do you ensure that all the catch trays and channels are in place. (The most viable being a team of fire suited suicide workers placing the catch trays/channels after the impact and whilst fire is raging to act as a cover. Gets silly very quickly doesn't it?)

Then if it wasn't from thermite used in CD it is:

2) an independent exercise with steel and thermite brought together near that corner and used to produce the falling molten steel. Why? Simply for a display?? (And that one probably needs the fire suited suicide team also )

So typical of most truther/troll idiotic claims - the single point they raise possibly makes a modicum of sense BUT as soon as you try to fit context it rapidly becomes ridiculous.

And that is only one of many typical truther claims.

Can anyone think of ANY truther claim that can be put into a legitimate context? I'm not aware of any --- and they have had ten years to think them up.

So it is no wonder that "they" refuse to give full explanations --- set in legitimate context.

Refractory "channel rails"

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Can anyone think of ANY truther claim that can be put into a legitimate context? I'm not aware of any --- and they have had ten years to think them up.

So it is no wonder that "they" refuse to give full explanations --- set in legitimate context.

It is the basis of most CT claims on most CT subjects. Take a very minor point (e.g. a brief "dripping" of glowing substance) and make it the base for an entire house of cards.

1) A brief "fountain" of bright something is seen in one of two enormous skyscraper fires.

2) The only thing the CT has ever seen glow are molten metals on TV.

3) Therefore the bright "something" is molten metal.

4) All molten metals are steel.

5) The flow was only observed in one small area of one tower but is extrapolated to indicate molten steel in all areas of both towers.

6) Therefore all the support beams were melted into pools of liquid.

7) Explosives don't melt anything so the CT needs to imagine what could melt steel.

8) Thermite melts steel and can be used in explosives (actually as an initiator but for the CT facts are non-essential).

9) Therefore thermite, er, nano-thermite was used in 9/11.

[OCaptain]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Actually, demolition by "verinage" does procede from a point well above ground level, and is initiated without explosives. It even produces the same kind of ejecta as that seen in the collapses of the towers. Generally, it obeys the principles described by Bazant in his "crush-down,crush-up" theory. In fact, the only difference between the collapse of the towers and demolition by verinage is in how the collapse is initiated. In verinage, a system of levers is used to break pre-weakened load-bearing structures on several floors, allowing the upper block of the building to fall on the lower.

Obviously, a lot of people would have noticed the towers being rigged for verinage, and we can thus rule out that it was deliberately rigged for this procedure.

However, much of the strength of the core columns was compromised by the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires. When the loss of strength from heat caused the core columns to buckle, the resulting drop of the upper block initiated a verinage-like collapse of the rest of the structures.

I have learned much, oh Wise One!

Thanks for the tip.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by Robrob

It is the basis of most CT claims on most CT subjects. Take a very minor point (e.g. a brief "dripping" of glowing substance) and make it the base for an entire house of cards.

The OP actually states the logic; they claim the collapses are CD because they don't look right. Yet when asked why they don't look right they can't muster an educated answer so it goes back to "it just doesn't look right." The "answers" given are uneducated guesses fed by professional incompetents, so it's no surprise that people would rather derail things into semantics legitimate or otherwise about labels, rather than face the reality that the "never before in history"/"no steel frame bldg"/base everything on likelihood instead of objective research is a baseless excuse for laziness to do research; research that answers the questions sufficiently without pseudo-scientific CD drivel.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Robrob

It is the basis of most CT claims on most CT subjects. Take a very minor point (e.g. a brief "dripping" of glowing substance) and make it the base for an entire house of cards......

And, from that point "they" play the two most consistent truther tactics of:
1) Reverse burden of proof; AND
2) Demand that the opponent prove a negative. (and usually an unlimited series of negatives as the goal posts get shifted....but lets not bother with that )

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

....so it's no surprise that people would rather derail things into semantics legitimate or otherwise about labels, rather than face the reality that .......

...which is probably the overriding truther tactic of recent times --- derail and sidetrack.

The "truther" or "CT" objective is to keep discussion circling --- to make sure debate does not progress.

Without detracting from the work of Chrismohr and the great ongoing scientific discussions in other threads the reality is that the whole of the thermXte debate is a truther driven sideline or derail. The only legitimate reason for discussing thermXte in the context of 9/11 conspiracies is that is could potentially be a pointer to CD.

But there was no CD. The weight of evidence is overwhelming and there has never been a prima facie pro CD explanation published. So thermXte discussion leads nowhere. Even if someone demonstrates that there was 100tonnes of thermXte in each of the Twin Towers -- So what? It wasn't used in CD.

Naturally it suits the truther trolls to discuss thermXte for ever. They don't want to enter the real debate about CD. They know that there was no CD or at least that no-one has ever put forward a plausible case for CD.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

...
Without detracting from the work of Chrismohr and the great ongoing scientific discussions in other threads the reality is that the whole of the thermXte debate is a truther driven sideline or derail. The only legitimate reason for discussing thermXte in the context of 9/11 conspiracies is that is could potentially be a pointer to CD.
...
Naturally it suits the truther trolls to discuss thermXte for ever. They don't want to enter the real debate about CD. They know that there was no CD or at least that no-one has ever put forward a plausible case for CD.

I am personally invested in that issue. Yes, it is a sideline, and has been since it first came up, in 2006 or so. But it is a major sidetrack. A major dead end.
And I think there is a chance to put an end to it^[1].
This will demonstrate how major parts of the not-quite-so-whacky truth movement willing followed a few gurus down a major dead end.

They are shooting down each other left and right, and more and more of their memes come into discredit. This will be another nail in their coffin.

People get tired and bored with 9/11, a new generation of angry young men grows up that didn't even quite remember the event from own memory. Already we see interest in AE911T declining, as fewer people sing up than in the three years before the 10th anniversary.

We may feel frustration over every single issue that simply doesn't go away, but I say in the long run we are winning on the issues.



[1] Even though we see already how they are lining up their ducks and have already rejected the new study, before it's even out, using the usual tactics of Poisoning the Well, Pre-Moving the Goalposts...

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Okay.

Quick answer, gravity.

What goes up eventually has to come down.

Whether it be from artificial means or natural decay over a long period of time.

Eventually gravity will have its way.

The only thing that will be different is the pattern of the collapse.

WTC7 is the best case since fire was credited with the primary reason for its collapse.

So why should a fire-induced collapse of a steel-structured modern office tower look different from what actually happened?

Given that in spite of the fact, that of the thousands of major fires that steel-structured office towers have faced, that prior to 9/11, only controlled demolitions have achieved the kind of collapse pattern exhibited by the collapse of WTC7?

There are no valid other examples, so we can only consider non-fire induced collapses, fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings, or accept the validity of pioneered computer models such as that produced by the NIST.

Since a computer model, regardless of how well designed, is fundamentally an attempt to make an educated approximation of reality, it loses credibility when attempting to mimic an unprecedented event with no valid historical corroboration.

Since you reject non-fire induced collapse, such as controlled demolition, we can only look to the pattern of fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings.

Well, those collapses tend to be piecemeal, as random fire distribution does not attack structural supports in a uniform, equally timed destructive pattern.

Clearly, the WTC Twin Towers and WTC7 did not collapse in a piecemeal pattern.

They collapsed in a controlled demolition pattern.

The only argument that exists to support a fire-induced collapse pattern is a pioneered computer model with no proven reference to backup the conclusions that are drawn from it.

All of the references based on real examples point towards artificially induced collapse.

MM

The math says it all.
2/11(18%) of a building is not going to completely crush the undamaged portion, 9/11(82%), of the building beneath it.

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The math says it all.
2/11(18%) of a building is not going to completely crush the undamaged portion, 9/11(82%), of the building beneath it.

A remarkable claim considering no math was offered to substantiate the assertion....

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I am personally invested in that issue...

...and as you will be aware I respect fully your right to pursue the sideline albeit for purely scientific interest since it has no established relevance to 9/11 conspiracy at this stage.

Originally Posted by Oystein

... Yes, it is a sideline, and has been since it first came up, in 2006 or so. But it is a major sidetrack. A major dead end.
And I think there is a chance to put an end to it^[1]...

...which is where we may differ. Thrutherism is a hydra. And cutting off a head has the well known consequence....

Originally Posted by Oystein

...This will demonstrate how major parts of the not-quite-so-whacky truth movement willing followed a few gurus down a major dead end....

True. It can potentially separate genuine sceptics/genuine truthers from the thoroughly deluded and those who are merely trolls. My opinion is that there aren't many of the former classification left - their concerns answered long ago. And most of those we see here are purely trolls with little if any attachment to true truther goals.

Originally Posted by Oystein

...They are shooting down each other left and right, and more and more of their memes come into discredit. This will be another nail in their coffin.

People get tired and bored with 9/11, a new generation of angry young men grows up that didn't even quite remember the event from own memory. Already we see interest in AE911T declining, as fewer people sing up than in the three years before the 10th anniversary....

er...."sign"?? ...agreed

Originally Posted by Oystein

...We may feel frustration over every single issue that simply doesn't go away, but I say in the long run we are winning on the issues....

It is inevitable on the technical issues because the evidence is undeniable long term. The more amorphous issues in the "political domain" will last longer and by their nature are not as easy to answer.

Originally Posted by Oystein

...[1] Even though we see already how they are lining up their ducks and have already rejected the new study, before it's even out, using the usual tactics of Poisoning the Well, Pre-Moving the Goalposts...

Predictable as little childrem.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The math says it all.
2/11(18%) of a building is not going to completely crush the undamaged portion, 9/11(82%), of the building beneath it.

The makers of the documentary series "Life after People" seem to disagree and sometimes depict exactly this kind of collapse. Are they part of the conspiracy or have they been conditioned by watching the WTC collapses too many times?

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The math says it all.
2/11(18%) of a building is not going to completely crush the undamaged portion, 9/11(82%), of the building beneath it.

Wrong. 2/11(18%) of the building completely crushed the floor beneath it 1/110(.01%)

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The math says it all.
2/11(18%) of a building is not going to completely crush the undamaged portion, 9/11(82%), of the building beneath it.

Dude, you just asserted that verinage cannot work.



It's like eating an elephant.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

These are your idea of steel-structured building fires that were fought and thus saved from collapse?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_...id_burning.jpg

The steel-framed portions of that building collapsed due to fire.

Quote:

If any steel-structured building should have collapsed from fire they definitely should.

But they didn't.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_...skyscraper.jpg

Oh look, it's the windsor tower in madrid with the steel-framed portions gone!

*I wonder what could have happened to them?


*No I don't. I know exactly what happened to them.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

Wrong. 2/11(18%) of the building completely crushed the floor beneath it 1/110(.01%)

So the 1/110 and 1/110 that made contact would both be crushed?

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

So the 1/110 and 1/110 that made contact would both be crushed?

Do you mean the 2/11 and 1/100? If so, yes, but the one on the loosing side of gravity would suffer the most. Unless you think that crushing somehow makes mass vanish.

Lefty is right; you just disproved verinage. VERINAGE IS A HOAX!!!111!!!1

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Do you mean the 2/11 and 1/100? If so, yes, but the one on the loosing side of gravity would suffer the most. Unless you think that crushing somehow makes mass vanish.

Wrong. Not even close.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The math says it all.
2/11(18%) of a building is not going to completely crush the undamaged portion, 9/11(82%), of the building beneath it.

Please explain why that would be the case......are you confusing mass with strength?
Build a house of cards and see why you are wrong (again)

In any case the top didn't crush the bottom in the way you suggest. It didn't need to as the pancaking of the floors destroyed the buildings.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Wrong. Not even close.

You haven't exactly shown your engineering expertise in your posting history; pardon me if I require a second opinion.

[000063]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The math says it all.
2/11(18%) of a building is not going to completely crush the undamaged portion, 9/11(82%), of the building beneath it.

Someone worked it out. The portion that collapsed hit the lower portion with the force of roughly thirty times its own weight.

[Edx]

Originally Posted by Robrob

And that no other material looks like "molten material" when viewed falling from a distance.

And this




http://translate.google.com/translat...gi%2F1.7793083

As far as I can make out it wasn't to show that aluminium glows when it melts, but to show the explosive reaction when it comes in contact with water.

However, look at what happened to it and how it behaves.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Wrong. Not even close.

What's the ratio of all the floors above to the one floor below it crushes first?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Wrong. Not even close.

Okay, Clayton, adjust your tin foil and think for a moment.

Let us say that we have four slabs, each weighing three pounds, suspsended one above the other on brackets that break at a static load of four pounds.

What happens if we drop the top slab onto the next-to-the-top?

[Travis]

Heck just look at a video of a human pyramid where the person at the top falls.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by 000063

Someone worked it out. The portion that collapsed hit the lower portion with the force of roughly thirty times its own weight.

Did they?

Your scenario has TWO "portions" meeting with the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion"

The concussion would damage both portions equally.

The two damaged "portions" would become a buffer between the remaining 19 upper floors and the intact 89 floors.

Would the 19 floors plus the two damaged floors have the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion" against the next floor?



For a pancake theory to work the floors had to stay INTACT in order
maintain the force needed to "collapse" the next lower floor.

A crushed floor(s) would defuse the force. Just as a falling bag of sand would be destructive, the release of the same amount of loose sand would have much less force and be much less destructive.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Did they?

Your scenario has TWO "portions" meeting with the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion"

The concussion would damage both portions equally.

The two damaged "portions" would become a buffer between the remaining 19 upper floors and the intact 89 floors.

Would the 19 floors plus the two damaged floors have the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion" against the next floor?



For a pancake theory to work the floors had to stay INTACT in order
maintain the force needed to "collapse" the next lower floor.

A crushed floor(s) would defuse the force. Just as a falling bag of sand would be destructive, the release of the same amount of loose sand would have much less force and be much less destructive.

My brain hurts now...

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Justin39640

My brain hurts now...

We know he doesn't understand - or doesn't want to admit that he understands.
BUT try this:

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

...Your scenario has TWO "portions" meeting with the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion"...

I couldn't guarantee 30 times but certainly of that order and overwhelming.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

...The concussion would damage both portions equally....

Outright wrong.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

...The two damaged "portions" would become a buffer between the remaining 19 upper floors and the intact 89 floors....

Depends what he is implying by "buffer". There would be damaged bits between the undamaged parts. BUT so what? it has no effect on the collapse.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

...Would the 19 floors plus the two damaged floors have the force of 30 times the weight of ONE "portion" against the next floor?...

whether exactly 30 times I cannot say. But the force would still be overwhelmingly large relative to the strength of the next bit to fail.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

...For a pancake theory to work the floors had to stay INTACT in order maintain the force needed to "collapse" the next lower floor...

Hogwash. Outright untrue naturally.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

...A crushed floor(s) would defuse the force....

More hogwash. The falling mass if imposed statically would still be overwhelming. Whether or not the crushed material had any dampening effect in the actual dynamic application it would be second or lower order. No effect on outcome..

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

...Just as a falling bag of sand would be destructive, the release of the same amount of loose sand would have much less force and be much less destructive.

A stupid false analogy which has been dealt with in other threads.

[Travis]

Incredibly a thousand tons of rubble weighs the same as a thousand ton block!

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Quote:

...The concussion would damage both portions equally....

Outright wrong.

Why wouldn't the damage be basically the same?

[Toke]

Originally Posted by Travis

Incredibly a thousand tons of rubble weighs the same as a thousand ton block!

There exist a video of a huge bulldozer tipping a few tons of water onto a car. It is clearly faked as the car is totalled and we all know that water is softer than steel.

I assume you have heard of ships getting damaged by waves during storms, those are clearly insurance scams.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Why wouldn't the damage be basically the same?

You are talking about the start of the "global collapse".

Remember that we are not dealing with homogeneous solids (The Heiwa mistake and part of the Richard Gage cardboard boxes mistake).

The bits that came into contact were not the same strength.

For example at the outer perimeter the contact was mainly "floor plus outer columns" striking "floor only" - that for those sides where the outer perimeter of the top section fell inside the outer perimeter of the bottom section. Vice versa in the reverse case.

The core on core was similar but a bit more complicated.

All of it best understood if you gain a good understanding of the mechanisms.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

For a pancake theory to work the floors had to stay INTACT in order
maintain the force needed to "collapse" the next lower floor.

A crushed floor(s) would defuse the force. Just as a falling bag of sand would be destructive, the release of the same amount of loose sand would have much less force and be much less destructive.

Bull feathers. Now you are as good as asserting that snow cannot crush a roof.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

You are talking about the start of the "global collapse".

Remember that we are not dealing with homogeneous solids (The Heiwa mistake and part of the Richard Gage cardboard boxes mistake).

The bits that came into contact were not the same strength.

For example at the outer perimeter the contact was mainly "floor plus outer columns" striking "floor only" - that for those sides where the outer perimeter of the top section fell inside the outer perimeter of the bottom section. Vice versa in the reverse case.

The core on core was similar but a bit more complicated.

All of it best understood if you gain a good understanding of the mechanisms.

I'm referring to portion 1/110A with 19/110 connected above it smashing into another portion 1/110B.


The concussion would damage both portions equally.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

For example at the outer perimeter the contact was mainly "floor plus outer columns" striking "floor only" - that for those sides where the outer perimeter of the top section fell inside the outer perimeter of the bottom section.

You can see in some of the video that there is dust being ejected from windows several floors below the wave of destruction of the perimeter columns, often well in advance of the ejection of dust on the other side of the tower. This could very well be the result of core columns coming straight down onto the floors and penetrating a little faster than would the mere accumulated mass of rubble.