It doesn't take brilliance to understand kinetic energy from 45,000 tons falling at 40mph and how it grows exponentially as it increases in velocity and mass. It does baffle somewhat to see 22 years gone by and the same dumb arguments being raised.
So please elaborate on how the dumb arguments proposed by Bazant over 22 years ago and relied upon by NIST (and you apparently) are correct and over 3,600 architects and engineers support the following and disagree wholeheartedly: https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Sep11PentagonsBMovie/TheMissingJolt-042209.pdf And after you're done with that, please explain why NIST is correct and Jonathan Cole has no idea what he's talking about:
It just takes not thinking about what really had to happen. Where did you get 45,000 tons? In the simulation I suggested the bottom of the 20 falling stories would impact the top of the stationary 90 stories. They should be about equally strong, being adjacent, so they should crush each other. But the energy to bend the steel and crack the concrete must come from somewhere. The kinetic energy of the falling mass MUST Decrease therefore the mass MUST Slow Down. The top level adds to the falling mass but the conservation of momentum contributes to the slow down. Then level 89 is hit by 2 levels of compressed rubble below the intact level 92. 89 an 92 are destroyed using up more kinetic energy with 89 adding to the falling mass moving even more slowly. So it goes on 88&93, 87&94, 86&95, 85&96, 84&97, 83&98, 82&99, etc. But as levels get lower they must be getting stronger and heavier requiring more energy to destroy. Going up, above the impact area, weaker and lighter. But the falling mass had an impact velocity and therefore kinetic energy plus gravity should add some more but it won't be freefall anymore. So even if the falling mass could destroy 3 times it's own number of levels 90 - (3 * 20) should still leave 30 levels standing. Which we know did not happen. So how could what did happen actually occur? And that does not take chaos into account. How could tens of thousands of tons crashing into each other stay perfectly aligned to come straight down? Wouldn't it probably get off center crushing one side more and then get more and more off center and fall down the side? That is what is so peculiar about the South Tower. The NIST admits that it tilted 20 to 25 degrees. How could it come straight down. But no experts ask about the center of gravity for Two Decades. The Specious Odyssey is utterly ridiculous. The engineering schools do not even demand accurate data for a good simulation.
But Mr. Brilliance you have yet to explain how and why the above applies to the global "gravitational progressive collapse" of the twin towers on 9/11 at unimpeded 2/3 free fall directly into the path of its own massive structure while at the same time expelling massive structural components in all directions horizontally at velocities of 50-70+ MPH, some embedding into adjacent buildings and others hurled up to 600 ft from the towers. Yet leaving behind an approximately 600 ft "spire" consisting of part of the core of the tower (as explained by Jonathan Cole in the video I provided). And while you brilliantly explain that, also explain how that all works with the top of tower leaning quite radically as it separates from the rest of the tower and disappears into dust. By all means, please explain YOUR problem(s) without the use of the "university of Google" since you are obviously that brilliant and you definitely know better than over 3,600 "obviously incompetent" architects and engineers.
Really Bob? You trying to goad me back to your personal soapbox? It doesn't take any brilliance was my point, but if you are confused by that, now you shouldn't be. It has already been explained. You choose not to accept it. What more do you want from the limited data available? We both know that's not true Bob. So proving it was impeded huh? That's gravity for you Bob. Were there to be any part of the building acting as a fulcrum it would have to be insanely strong to alter the downward path of that mass. That's what should happen with extreme kinetic force and random collisions within. When someone "provides" a 2hr video with no analysis, direct comments or timestamp to supplement any of their points do you reasonably think anyone is going to sit down and watch it? I've never heard anyone suggest that the remains were "600 ft" high. Is that what you are claiming? Already explained to you Bob and no brilliance needed. Gravity. It has virtually no horizontal force, no meaningful fulcrum and will fall in the downwards direction accordingly. Once engaged with the other section, inevitable random collisions occur which will determine what is expelled and the onward direction of the mass of the building. Meh! Well Bob, you are using the "3,600" number and implying they are all "experts". Let's break it down and reverse the burden of proof back to where it actually resides. The number of AE911truth are comprised of members from not just the US. The number of engineers in the US alone is 2 million. The number of architects is 116,242. Architects in general are not qualified to assess structural issues relating to skyscraper collapses! AE911 does not update its member list with people who have reconsidered their opinion. So there's problem number one. 2,113,000 engineers and architects disagree with your paltry 3,600 Bob.
So you're not that brilliant then? I certainly can understand that given the posts. That's your explanation? Jeeez, I'm overwhelmed by the scientifically accurate detail. What exactly am I not accepting? You haven't explained anything, vaporware somehow does not qualify as an explanation, never mind one involving evidence and science. Why are you choosing not to accept actual evidence, studies and numerous detailed scientific papers written by many experts who have actually refuted NIST? You can find literally hundreds of these here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/ I'm not sure how to answer that because the data is actually quite overwhelming since many of these studies and papers are based on the available data. You don't speak for anyone but yourself. But actually you are correct, we both know it isn't true but for completely different reasons. In your case, you just ASSume all 3 towers collapsed because that's what you were fed. In my case, I know that these were not global collapses because that is impossible. The destruction wave for the twin towers was unimpeded, of course, that can be seen on multiple videos. In the case of WTC7, the "collapse" into its own massive structure was actually at free fall for the first 100 ft. All have been reasonably accurately measured. Yup, gravity certainly helps in the demolition of such structures. Perhaps in your magic world but in reality, it's what should happen with explosive forces. So you choose ignorance because of the length of the video and your assumption that no analysis is provided. I understand but how do you know no analysis was provided if you never even watched the video? That was the approximate height as explained in the video you never watched. But let's just say it was only 300 ft tall, what difference does that make? Ah you wouldn't know because you have no clue what the video (or Cole) explains. Of course, how foolish of me, your explanation is that it was already explained. You are certainly correct, there is no brilliance needed to claim it was already explained. Of course, what was I thinking, word salad (to borrow from another poster). That certainly explains how a radically leaning top section turning into dust in mid-air can fully destroy the remainder of a massive structure by gravity alone while causing massive components to be hurled horizontally at velocities of 50-70 MPH. No actually problem number one is how you claim/conclude that over 2 million engineers and architects disagree with "[my???] paltry 3,600" without any supporting evidence. In the first place, they are not mine, I don't own any architects or engineers. In the second place, over 3,600 vetted architects and engineers actively signed the petition at the AE911Truth website, many have written papers and produced videos (see link I provided). Who and how many among the alleged 2 million have actively disagreed, studied and/or written papers that refute any of the findings of those who actually did the research and contradicted the official story? Is this more of your typical vaporware?
Bob, you seem to specialize in goading people rather than cultivating the ability to objectively examine alternatives to your life-quest. Sarcasm being your main weapon of debate is not impressive. Looks like you've got another fish on the hook Bob, but I'm not going through this total crap over and over again. I am betting that you have not ever bothered to source out any number of analyses on this subject if they don't fit in with this idiotic "demolition" theory. Here's one in extensive detail examining the structural aspects: WTCpaper.pdf;jsessionid=48BE051F8F7F9BA1FA92E551E7B8218C (ed.ac.uk) "A complete consensus on any detailed explanation of the definitive causes and mechanisms of the collapse of these structures is well nigh impossible given the enormous uncertainties in key data (nature of the fires, damage to fire protection, heat transfer to structural members and nature and extent of structural damage for instance). There is however a consensus of sorts that the fires that burned in the structures after the attack had a big part to play in this collapse." Here's one in even more detail looking at the math involved. The Total Collapse of the Twin Towers: What It Would Have Taken to Prevent It Once Collapse Was Initiated | Journal of Structural Engineering | Vol 148, No 2 (ascelibrary.org) "It is generally taken as a given that there is no reasonable design concept that could have prevented the collapse of the Twin Towers, once it was initiated, from progressing all the way down to the ground. This view is rooted in the idea that the force generated during the inevitable impact between what may be called the intact upper section (IUS) and the intact lower section (ILS)—meaning the building sections above and below the initially lost columns, respectively—will exceed by at least one order of magnitude the capacity of the latter. On closer inspection, this turns out to be only partially correct—it is correct with regard to the topmost floor plate of the ILS but not with regard to the columns below this floor plate. This paper shows that if the ILS in the Twin Towers had been topped by a stronger-than-ordinary floor plate allowing the columns below to respond properly, rather than be bypassed, these columns—and with them the ILS—would likely have survived. " And we're back once more with the "experts" you choose to accept and ignoring the ones who don't explain it the way you want. There is significant data that is not available, detailed in the first quote above. Nice dodge Bob. They didn't collapse unimpeded you were wrong or told a lie. You don't speak for anyone but yourself and what you think and what you think you know is irrelevant. Speaking for myself, I know they are not impossible and I know this carries the same relevance as your opinion. That's gibberish. It was impeded by the floor it was impacting all the way down. You seem to be doubling down on this nonsense about "unimpeded", when the time of collapse says the opposite! Irrelevant to this discussion and so what. Gee Bob, great rebuttal. Such amazing insightful rebuttal, very convincing Bob. There is no "magic world" involving totally obvious extreme kinetic force and random collisions within. And as for explosive forces, that is what happens with colossal temperatures being generated and extremely high kinetic force collisions. I choose not to waste two hours of my life on a truther video when YOU(duh!) have provided no analysis about it. What am I watching, which bits do you feel are significant and why? What steps have you taken to verify any of his analyses? Seriously, are you suggesting that 600ft of the building remained after the collapse? No problem, glad I could help. My explanation is exactly that. You are citing your own "experts" and choosing to believe them instead of the reports that were originally made. The major problem being that very significant data about what was occurring within the building has to be assumed. Your amazing sarcasm is just a joy to read. You have been perfecting it for over 2 decades - definitely seeing an improvement. Leaning yes, moving horizontally not so much. This is where you learn the mechanics of gravity instead of making noise about things you don't understand. What turned to dust in mid-air? Are you saying the top section of the building turned to dust? Accumulated kinetic force from an extremely large mass undergoing gravitational acceleration. Works for me. Internal random collisions at incredibly high forces. Again, works for me. I don't need to support my claim. YOU have the burden of proof to explain why your miniscule number of mainly unqualified people from all around the world hold the power of argument over the millions who are not part of team AE911. A very petty response. They ARE yours in terms of you using them to supplement your argument. Why do your "experts" have more credibility than the ones they argue against? Show me exactly where the "many have written papers" section is, because I couldn't see it on your post. I have provided two papers at the top that should keep you busy for days. This is not "alleged". This is a cited fact. "According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there were approximately 2 million engineers" Why should these people actively do this? Is this your dumb argument? "Hey look, none of the 99.99% has actively denied or examined this therefore....."! Nice dodge though, your tiny section of people, mainly unqualified supersede the silent majority because they are silent.
No, just an observation not a complaint. Got anything worthwhile to say? Have you found solutions to your failures?
No, just bored with your delusions of intellectual adequacy. When are you going to tell us the difference between the amount of steel on level 5 of the North Tower versus level 105?
Comedy physics. The kinetic energy from the falling mass is an order of magnitude beyond the floor below's support capability. It gains kinetic energy each floor. Hogwash. The top level IS the falling mass and conservation of momentum in this case points to a progressive build up of kinetic energy from the object far exceeding support capabilities of each floor. True, but the kinetic energy is growing exponentially. That's gibberish. Mass increases as does velocity. Kinetic energy in a falling object increases. It starts off way beyond what the floor below could actually support and increases in speed whilst accumulating mass from each impact. Whilst floor strength must increase, so does the overall kinetic energy. Simple, there is virtually zero resistance from a potential fulcrum and the top section has no horizontal velocity. Center of gravity is still above the building footprint. Gravity and descent collisions determine direction of fall. Never. When are you going to work out properly how much extra mass(and its speed) is impacting it. Never.
Then you proceed to do just that. Yet YOU admit you refuse to watch a video allegedly because it's 2 hours long and does not provide an analysis which you have no clue whether it does or doesn't because you never watched it by your own admission. In any case, I don't have any "idiotic demolition theory", the controlled demolition of all 3 towers is supported by the evidence, science and plain common sense. As already explained, there are numerous evidence based scientific papers that have been written by multiple experts that support this fact. Not to mention supported by video and a host of eyewitness evidence. A majority of these can be accessed via the links I've provided in this forum over multiple years. Which attempts to support the refuted Bazant theory and fails to provide any supporting experiment as required by the scientific method (see the Cole video). Oh wait it's too long for you but this paper isn't. Could that really be because it doesn't support your fairy tale world? And it even contradicts itself early on in the section titled "Lessons from Cardington" where it fails to mention that in both the Cardington and Broadgate experiments the structures failed to collapse despite being subjected to intentional exaggerated heat for multiple hours and the lack of protective fireproofing. Ditto with the above. Here's a paper "with math involved" that proves Bazant is full of it: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1910/1910.10801.pdf Amazing how you allegedly have the time to go through the 2 papers you provided links to (and really have no clue what they are trying to peddle), yet you don't have the time to view the video that proves via experiment that the twin towers did not collapse. Are you looking in the mirror? True but it doesn't change the fact that there is significant data that IS available. I thought I already said that. I guess reading comprehension is not one of your skills. They were destroyed in unimpeded fashion. They could not possibly collapse in unimpeded fashion. Looking in the mirror again? You are not really speaking for yourself, you're regurgitating what you were fed which has been proven to be impossible in numerous ways, not to mention common sense. But that's your call. If you're trying to convince anyone, you're not doing a very good job. The question is why are you here? I'm here to provide as much information as I come across that refutes the official 9/11 fairy tale. A lot of it is suppressed or is difficult to find for obvious reasons. If you're here to defend the official 9/11 fairy tale all you need to do is post the NIST reports and the 9/11 Commission Report, those are easily accessible as they are quite mainstream. Speaking of gibberish, what was impeded by the floor it was impacting all the way down? Are you attempting to describe a "pancake collapse"? If so, you'd be the only one, even NIST walked away from that "gibberish" because it was all too obvious that never happened. And it's irrelevant and "so what" because? But that is not the world of the destruction of the twin towers and WTC7 on 9/11. So it's your magic world. So you're saying the twin towers and WTC7 exploded? What on earth is a "truther video"? Would that be one that you refuse to watch because it disagrees with your worldview? Why should I provide analysis when that's exactly what the video does? Which is why I posted it, so you could review the analysis presented by Cole in the video. What steps have you taken to verify (or refute) any of Cole's analysis? Oh right, you refuse to watch it because it's a "truther video" or is it because it's 2 hours long (I forget which convenient excuse works for you). Seriously, do you have that much of a reading comprehension issue? Please quote where I posted that. I don't own any personal experts. The experts I cite have contradicted the official reports in intricate scientific evidence based detail, most using the scientific method. I choose to believe them because they are mostly irrefutable and I choose to not believe the official reports because they make no sense, either scientifically or intuitively. In other words you're admitting you know nothing about the basic laws of physics. Do you even read? What is there you don't understand about the smaller top portion of the tower? Oy vey. Let me guess, because it works for you? Again, I don't own any "experts". I provided links to numerous papers and videos produced by experts who have proven in numerous ways why the official reports are false, not to mention unscientific. Are you joking now? I provided the link in my post. Thank you. Why do you choose to quote me out of context? Oh yeah because you have no possible way of providing any evidence to support your claim so it's easier to move the goalposts.
I never said floor. I always say LEVEL. When people say FLOOR they usually mean the 600 ton concrete slab around the core and inside the perimeter columns. The falling core above had to come down on the stationary core below. There is not a shred of evidence that floor assemblies ever broke loose inside the building. Where are there photographs of any floor slabs and pans in the rubble after the collapse?
Wow, irrelevant personal preference noted. Nothing gets past you does it. Just bizarre. I write a fairly large post showing your physics failures and you come back with that horseshit?
You forgot the comma and you used a period instead of a question mark. Nothing gets past you, does it?
Noise. Rhetorical questions do not require question marks. Unless you are clueless enough to think I was after a reply. Are you? Go read Bob's post just above and without your usual pathetic double standards, correct his post and see how many missing commas you spot. Thanks for your contribution to the thread, useless as usual.
If it is in freefall. If it is impacting mass below and breaking its supports, not so much. The building was 208 by 208 ft. The core was 85 by 135 ft. The NCSTAR1 report by the NIST does not says the core supported 53% of the building's weight and the tilt was 20 to 25 degrees. Where was the center of gravity relative to the footprint of the core? DUH!
That was supposed to be: The NCSTAR1 report by the NIST says the core supported 53% of the building's weight and the tilt was 20 to 25 degrees. This website does not allow enough edit time.
That is true but not in the way you meant it. Not so much being just that, not as much as free fall, offering a small level of resistance against the colossal kinetic energy of the section striking it. Gee thanks for your googling expertise. Irrelevant. The COG was still within the perimeter of the building. Have you not seen the images showing this during the collapse? Smartest thing you've said. You seem to be suggesting something Impossible, that the visual evidence also demonstrates as ridiculously wrong. Is this your comedy "toppling over" claim?
So where is your physical model demonstrating your vast knowledge. I am already tired of wading through your literary diarrhea. Modeling & Testing
Really? You think understanding kinetic energy is difficult? Well obviously it is for you, but the universities of Google and YouTube probably make you think you "know things" that you clearly don't.
Yawn! Verbal diarrhea is all you are capable of in you attempt to imply intelligence. Analysis of the North Tower collapse without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete is nonsense. Reading your blather about kinetic energy is a bore even if it helps you to inflate your ego with delusions of intellectual adequacy. Build a physical model and show us.
