Talking Turkey

September 13, 2012

Dishonesty again. You know perfectly well that the video was produced by an artist and doesn't incorporate anything like the full physics. To quote the originator of the video:

The main purpose of this video is to prove the capabilities of my physics system development, if any. It is not intended to prove or disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Another trademark baseless accusation/ad hom from Swanny.

Blender uses the Bullet physics engine which incorporates basics such as gravity, collision detection and Newton’s third law. Rather, where the model accuracy will be lacking is in aspects such as mass, strength and detail of the tower construction – which I highlighted when presenting the video. This applies to both upper and lower blocks so does not affect the physics interaction of each, namely the approximate equal and opposite progression of damage. Indeed the simulation was not designed with intent to prove or disprove ‘9/11 conspiracy theories’, though if it inadvertently demonstrates a point then all the better. A point that is supported by observation and further real world evidence no less.

If you want to talk about dishonesty, perhaps that is making a repeated false claim about the comparison to photographic evidence of NIST’s base and severe cases for WTC2 then, when proven hopelessly incorrect in my post #251, dropping the subject without correction or apology.

September 13, 2012

Another trademark baseless accusation/ad hom from Swanny.

Blender uses the Bullet physics engine which incorporates basics such as gravity, collision detection and Newton’s third law. Rather, where the model accuracy will be lacking is in aspects such as mass, strength and detail of the tower construction – which I highlighted when presenting the video. This applies to both upper and lower blocks so does not affect the physics interaction of each, namely the approximate equal and opposite progression of damage. Indeed the simulation was not designed with intent to prove or disprove ‘9/11 conspiracy theories’, though if it inadvertently demonstrates a point then all the better. A point that is supported by observation and further real world evidence no less.

You think omitting the building mass and strength isn't going to make the results physically meaningless? Ye gods.

If you want to talk about dishonesty, perhaps that is making a repeated false claim about the comparison to photographic evidence of NIST’s base and severe cases for WTC2 then, when proven hopelessly incorrect in my post #251, dropping the subject without correction or apology.

All you demonstrate in that post is that your method of comparing actual and predicted damage is nothing like NIST's method.

September 13, 2012

You think omitting the building mass and strength isn't going to make the results physically meaningless? Ye gods.

Ye gods read my post again, “namely the approximate equal and opposite progression of damage”. The physics apply whatever the material properties and demonstrate the point so long as the upper and lower blocks are of equivalent construction.

All you demonstrate in that post is that your method of comparing actual and predicted damage is nothing like NIST's method.

NIST’s method is the same as mine - observation and comparison of the simulated cases to the reality. What I clearly demonstrate in the comparison, is that impact damage in the base case simulation is blatantly a better match overall to the impact damage reality than is the severe case – i.e. the greater pitch and trajectory of the base (non collapse) case, which directed energy away from the core structure, is a better match – that is undeniable, correcting your long held mistaken belief that the base and severe cases were “equally good” match, despite that being your own fabrication; NIST saying no such thing (another example of your failed reading comprehension skills). I’m sure this is all a little embarrassing to you after making the false claim for so long and now so typically you are trying to deceive your way out of it with the above additional fabricated claim. No, I got ya... again.

I feel a little bad for you really, but sometimes you deserve it.

By the way, why do you do it? I mean, why make such blatant errors and then obfuscate simple issues in attempt to weasel out of it? It can’t be that you are too stupid to understand what you are doing. So it appears for you this is more about keeping up a visage and winning an argument, than accepting the actual truth. It’s all quite dishonest. Do you not realise the stakes here, or are you just too afraid to face up to them? Perhaps the two go hand in hand. Either way the credibility of your opinion reaches new depths all the time.

Come on, face facts, accept that the WTC2 base (non collapse) case impact damage was a better match to reality than the severe case.

It’s right here, there's no escaping it: -

http://www.unexplain...40#entry4447162

I’m betting you will prefer to continue living in denial than face such a fact.

September 13, 2012

September 13, 2012

Ye gods read my post again, “namely the approximate equal and opposite progression of damage”. The physics apply whatever the material properties and demonstrate the point so long as the upper and lower blocks are of equivalent construction.

If you think getting those factors wrong isn't important, your ignorance goes even deeper than I thought.

NIST’s method is the same as mine - observation and comparison of the simulated cases to the reality.

NIST's method involves matching failure mode, not superficial appearance.

...correcting your long held mistaken belief that the base and severe cases were “equally good” match, despite that being your own fabrication; NIST saying no such thing (another example of your failed reading comprehension skills).

NIST indeed says that the match with the impacted wall was good for both cases. They also say that the more severe case gave better matches for observed floor damage and for debris passing through the building and damaging the exit wall.

I mean, why make such blatant errors and then obfuscate simple issues in attempt to weasel out of it? It can’t be that you are too stupid to understand what you are doing.

Why do you see what you want to see and insult others when they don't see what you want? Boony and I have both asked you repeatedly to back up your claim that the collapse slows down, and you just keep saying its obvious. It's only obvious to you, because you want to believe that it's so.

September 14, 2012

If the core structure were not present and the floors could collapse independently then I would agree with your explanation. It would be the same as the NOVA or “pancake collapse” theory seen here, which formed basis of the official theory for a few years: -

Great, I think it will be very helpful for me to have this common starting point to use as reference.

Note that the core columns, which are left standing in the simulation, are not addressed. The “pancake collapse” theory has been widely dismissed, eventually even by NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system - that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns - consisted of a grid of steel 'trusses' integrated with a concrete slab). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.”

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm curious here; did I see someone also indicate that this statement deals solely with the initiation of the collapse? At some point lower than the damage point on WTC, is it correct that NIST findings do kinda assume some type of 'pancaking'; that the lower floors are failing because of the force of the falling upper mass? I'm assuming the perimeter columns are inwardly bowed at the damage point, but that there isn't really then a progressive inward bowing that is causing the lower stories to also fail? Or should I think of it more as the floors pancaking around the core column which is not collapsing or giving away at the same rate. Not sure that it's relevant to where we are at this point, but again, just trying to assemble a model in my mind.

Once we introduce the continuous core structures it’s a whole different kettle of fish.

This is an interesting one, and I shamelessly offer up another glimpse into the cartoonland physics in my brain for evisceration, and again bear with me as we move at a glacial pace through these points. My immediate thought is how does this continuous core structure make any difference, the principles and physical laws are the same as far as where the damage front is. Here's a quote from you on the past thread where you guys discussed this in April: "What actually happens is that the lower block, upper block and compression of the debris continuously come together at the same moment and forces are distributed equally and opposite between each." I believe what you are essentially saying there, and I think you referenced it maybe before on another post, is that the impact or force threshold is right in the middle of the middle debris, and I don't see how that is possible unless the middle debris is completely motionless and the blocks are pressing into it from either side with the same force; they are not. In my example where the 80th floor is vaporized, and I agreed that the 79th story and 81st story, the boundaries of the intact lower and upper blocks, are both compressed equally (in theory) when the upper block falls on the lower, and thus both become part of the collapse lair. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to be acknowledging how the positions of these masses have changed during this event. The 81st story initially falls into the position occupied by the vaporized 80th story, impacts the 79th story, collapses and then falls into the position of the upper half portion let's say of the formerly intact 79th floor; even just from the point of collapse, the part of the collapsed layer composed only of the 81st story has a velocity downward and thus must be adding to the force downward on the remaining lower block. As stories in the lower part collapse, the mass of these previously collapsed stories must move downward. I try in my brain to account for the more detailed things you're saying whose significance is slowly sinking in; that the upper block is deteriorating, that there is a core structure, that the lower portion is stronger than the upper, and I'm having trouble seeing how this makes any difference. Let's say that the collapse is not full; for a second, let's just say the upper block falls through 10 stories and then the strength of the lower block arrests any further collapse. Even in this scenario, I would expect there to be more damage to the lower section; the upper block never experiences a force that is not proportional to it's own remaining weight, the lower block experiences a force proportional to the upper block and the necessarily moving middle debris. As I've thought through the crumple scenario, I understand that the connections between the collapsed layer and the collapsing lower block layer can present an upward resistance due to having some remaining structural integrity, but to me that just moves (I think, very tentatively) the force front up from the actual bottom of the collapsed layer to a point somewhat upward a little bit, but absolutely not to the middle of the moving middle debris layer. If the force is truly equal at the middle of the debris layer, than how is there extra force causing it to move position? The middle debris layer in motion downward has a force, where is that force being dissipated to if the forces on either side of it are equal? I think an answer to these questions might help me see what you are saying. I don't understand how it is not obvious that at no point is the upper block having to sustain itself against any force deriving from the mass of the middle layer below it, whereas the lower block must. Where is the core coming into play, is it counteracting the force of the downward moving middle debris?

The impalement might be key, but I don't think it's relevant to this very specific point concerning Newton's third law as I don't think it's come up too much in the past conversations that I've made it through. There are so many factors beyond Newton that deal with damage caused, unless we're really locking down the model which I don't think we always are as there are continued references to what you think really happened in the actual collapse, which I have trouble shifting gears to on the fly like I said, but I know it is not a simple controlled model. Yes it's possible that the upper block falls just right, is impaled by the core columns and due to a chaotic combination of forces is damaged more than the lower block; and of course, it is possible that the converse could happen and it is the lower block that sustains more damage; that only indirectly has anything to do with Newton. Gage himself argues that the upper block is deteriorating faster than the lower block, which means that depending on the structure of the masses, the angles and situations of the forces and impacts, the lower block could have suffered more damage than the upper, the idea of equal damage isn't really applicable I don't think outside of a model with lots of simplified assumptions. Or, think of Gage's example that I don't really like, showing a car and a semi-truck and asking which takes more damage. This is a misleading analogy. If you don't think so, empty the trailer of the semi, flip it around 180 degrees, and now drop the car on it, and watch as it falls right through the structure of the empty trailer until it hits the truck cab, causing a lot more 'damage' to the semi.

Really? In the physics model you don’t see the upper block breaking at approximately an equal rate to the lower block? And in the video footage you don’t see the upper block ‘telescoping’ into the lower block? I guess the rates of damage are inconsistent there because once again the lower structure (with more load to carry) is designed to be stronger and of a greater mass than the upper structure.

Okay, I'm going to have to dip into your convo with swan. You said:

Rather, where the model accuracy will be lacking is in aspects such as mass, strength and detail of the tower construction – which I highlighted when presenting the video. This applies to both upper and lower blocks so does not affect the physics interaction of each, namely the approximate equal and opposite progression of damage. Indeed the simulation was not designed with intent to prove or disprove ‘9/11 conspiracy theories’, though if it inadvertently demonstrates a point then all the better.

This is just an opinion, I can't know obviously, but I have trouble believing that you wouldn't bring up pretty much what swan has brought up if this model showed something that did not fit with your theory; of course, the 'mass, strength, and detail of the tower construction' are critical to the validity of any results we are trying to derive from it, especially in something as enormously chaotic as this event. I think you'd be laughing at anyone who referred to this vaguely as a 'physics model' for the collapse if the results did not fit with the conclusions of your other evidence and reasoning. We are right now are at a juncture in our conversation as I try to add the core structure to my floors model; we both agree that my 'just floors' collapse is accurate but things change when we add the core, that's pretty darn indicative that mass, strength, and especially detail of the construction is important to any results. I think it's fine as a visual representation of the model you are talking about, but it's not evidence at all at this point due to not knowing how well it corresponds to anything.

Yes, under this model I do think I see what you are calling telescoping. Where is the telescoping happening though, isn't the upper block being shoved down into the lower block which is causing floors to fail and such as the lower block makes room for it? Maybe I'm not ready to get to telescoping yet.

You don’t think the physics model (not to mention Newton’s third law), and the video footage, and the antenna displacement, and the seismic evidence, and the core spire, altogether make it obvious that the upper block was breaking up?

At this point I'm disputing the physics model, as I think you should be also, and at least not getting your application of Newton as I detailed above. I have only had brief interaction with the antenna point, but we of course can't see exactly what's going on, and it seems reasonable to think that it was not designed to be able to withstand moving laterally much with abrupt movements and may have broken or failed mid-collapse. You have specific seismic evidence that shows that it was specifically the upper block that was breaking up? I do find these interesting points, but I think I need to set them aside as they deal with what actually happened, and I don't think what actually happened is necessary to analyze the damage and Newton issue yet. I do think that it is reasonable to say that the upper block was breaking up to some unknown extent, but I don't know what that is then showing. If it's breaking up into large chunks held together by a still intact steel skeleton, it's going to behave differently than if it's just pulverized as it goes. The upper block breaks up, but it's mass is being continually replenished as the top of the lower block fails and moves downward, and the mass may be growing at a rate faster than the structure of the lower section is getting stronger as you move to the lower floors. This is a lot of extremely detailed interaction that has to be teased out.

Look at this: -

How could this portion of the WTC1 core, which is approximately 60 storeys tall, remain standing had not the upper block broken up and/or been impaled by those columns? The upper block had to be broken apart and/or moved outside of the core footprint to leave those columns standing. Either way it is devastating to Bazant’s theory where neither destruction of the piledriver and/or a continued tilt of the upper block can be allowed. The very fact this picture exists is a violation of Bazant’s central premise – that damage did not extend into the upper block during the crush down phase

I’m not sure where to go from here...

I really need to convince you that the upper block had to and did either break up and/or tilt away from the tower, then we could discuss what happens next and why it destroys the official collapse theory.

I'd like to get through what we're talking about with Newton and damage first if possible as I think that's dealing with a simplified model first. To take some baby steps on where you're going here, I don't think the upper block kept it's full structure through the whole collapse, and I thought it tilted at the very initiation of the collapse (again, might be mixing collapses). The effect this had seems to me to be dependent on to what extent this break-up happened, did it happen faster than mass was being gained from the collapsing lower block, how much did it break up, how much became 'fluid' I guess so that there is greater opportunity for the force of gravity to be deflected or flow over or in open spaces in the structure, but it still has mass that must be accounted for. As far as where we go from here, other than the questions I asked above, perhaps you can go slowly and explain, one step at a time please, how what we agree occurs with a floors-only tower as far as Newton and damage changes drastically when you put a core in the middle.

Also, for anyone, concerning this core structure; am I correct that it is relying on the other parts of the building for some of it's structural integrity? Am I correct in assuming that the 100+ story core structure alone standing by itself would not be that stable?

September 14, 2012

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm curious here; did I see someone also indicate that this statement deals solely with the initiation of the collapse? At some point lower than the damage point on WTC, is it correct that NIST findings do kinda assume some type of 'pancaking'; that the lower floors are failing because of the force of the falling upper mass? I'm assuming the perimeter columns are inwardly bowed at the damage point, but that there isn't really then a progressive inward bowing that is causing the lower stories to also fail? Or should I think of it more as the floors pancaking around the core column which is not collapsing or giving away at the same rate. Not sure that it's relevant to where we are at this point, but again, just trying to assemble a model in my mind.

You are remembering correctly about the fact that NIST's comments about pancaking are regarding collapse initiation only, and not continuation. Q24 likes to selectively quote from this FAQ, ignoring the simple fact that NIST made no effort to model or discuss what happens after the collapse initiated because they, like any structural engineer worth their salt, know that once the collapses started there was no stopping them.

I've commented about this a few times, though I don't believe Q24 has given a rebuttal. Here is one such example:

No, the FAQ in question is pretty clear. It is in reference to collapse initiation. Here, I'll even quote the relevant sections for you and everyone else.

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed
according to the scenario detailed in the response to Question 6.

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram).
Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns
initiated collapse
and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards
.
Thus, the floors did not fail progressively
to cause
a pancaking phenomenon.

And what was Question 6 about? Wait for it... collapse initiation...

6. What
caused
the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

So you see, this has nothing to do with collapse continuation. It is completely, totally, and entirely about collapse initiation.

He just ignores this and continues along saying the same thing over and over again. Kind of like he is ignoring the fact that he hasn't substantiated the existence of a supposed reduction in velocity during collapse.

I do wonder why he ignores things that I, Swanny, and others have brought up sometimes...

September 14, 2012

You are remembering correctly about the fact that NIST's comments about pancaking are regarding collapse initiation only, and not continuation.

Thanks for the info, boony, that's what I thought, I didn't think there was columns bowing significantly under the impact point perpetuating the collapse.

Q, I just want to make clear about my question that boony addressed here that I was trying to complete the model in my head of what's going on throughout the full collapse, and that I'm not trying to interject into your disagreements with boony and swan here; they've provided a lot of help as you have in getting me up to speed, but I need to understand their points and yours more fully before I assent or disagree to any of them. You guys are way ahead of me.

September 14, 2012

If you think getting those factors wrong isn't important, your ignorance goes even deeper than I thought.

The only ignorance here is yours, of the point. I am saying that the material properties do not affect the laws of physics. If you disagree, instead of simply stating your disagreement to keep up the visage of an argument, you should explain how you think material properties affect the laws of physics. Actually don’t bother, I’m not interested in whatever nonsense you come back with.

NIST's method involves matching failure mode, not superficial appearance.

Absolutely laughable - your claim truly is a joke. I wouldn’t be so harsh on others, but you should know better. I have to question whether you are either completely ignorant, structuring your sentences wrong or are simply a liar. Furthermore, anyone who gives even cursory glance to NCSTAR 1-2 (which is all about validation of the simulations through comparison to observables, i.e. the superficial damage appearance) will suss you out in very quick order.

NCSTAR 1-2 Chapter 9.11 COMPARISON WITH OBSERVABLES: -

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101015

Again, I’m not interested in what nonsense you come back with. After years of supposedly studying the NIST reports, to then come out with the above ridiculous statement renders your opinion void and discussion with you pointless.

NIST indeed says that the match with the impacted wall was good for both cases. They also say that the more severe case gave better matches for observed floor damage and for debris passing through the building and damaging the exit wall.

Above you said that NIST’s methods did not involve matching the simulations with observables. Now you get into discussion of... NIST’s matching of the simulations with observables. Brilliant.

You previously claimed, and are still attempting to give the false impression, that comparison of the actual impact wall damage to the base and severe cases provided a, quote - “equally good” - match. NIST said nothing of the sort and indeed we have seen that comparison shows the base case to be a better match. This you continue to hide from, as I predicted in my last post that you would.

As you are ignorant, constructed your sentence wrong or lied about the above impact wall damage, you now do the same regarding the floor damage. NIST did not say that the severe case gave better match to the floor damage. The floor damage could not even be seen clearly enough to make an accurate comparison. It is an absolute fabrication of yours, which again a brief reading of NCSTAR 1-2 will reveal.

As you are ignorant, constructed your sentence wrong or lied about the above impact wall damage and floor damage, you now do the same regarding the exit wall damage. In this area there were numerous factors which did not rely on the aircraft impact parameters at all, namely the office layout which NIST admit was unknown. Why do you think NIST describe comparison to the impacted wall as “Very significant” but comparison to the exit wall as only “Slightly significant”? Never mind, I’m not interested in your answer.

Again, the whole point here, before you attempted to convolute a very simple issue, is that comparison of the actual impact damage (which NIST describe as the most significant observable factor) to the simulated cases, shows the base (non collapse) case to be the best match.

As you might have gathered from my post, I’m not interested in further discussion until you start facing up to such [literally] black and white realities. I’d advise anyone interested to read the report for themselves and beware of your extensive and disgraceful misrepresentations.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Q24

September 14, 2012

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I'm curious here; did I see someone also indicate that this statement deals solely with the initiation of the collapse? At some point lower than the damage point on WTC, is it correct that NIST findings do kinda assume some type of 'pancaking'; that the lower floors are failing because of the force of the falling upper mass? I'm assuming the perimeter columns are inwardly bowed at the damage point, but that there isn't really then a progressive inward bowing that is causing the lower stories to also fail? Or should I think of it more as the floors pancaking around the core column which is not collapsing or giving away at the same rate. Not sure that it's relevant to where we are at this point, but again, just trying to assemble a model in my mind.

I’m not sure it is relevant either – the ‘pancake’ collapse theory which is premised on a progressive failure of the “floors” has been widely dismissed. I’ll still answer some of your questions...

First, the main NIST report does not go into how the tower collapses progressed – it stops at the point of collapse initiation and then defers to Bazant’s hypothesis. This is actually a large criticism of the official study – the fact there has never been an official study which investigated actual observations during the collapses after initiation. It is not clear in the later FAQ (where the quote I provided came from) whether NIST are still referring only to the initial failure or including the progression of collapse after the initiation. Based on the wording, “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems” and “Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon” it can be suggested that NIST do not believe the phenomenon occurred at any time – there is certainly no indication whatsoever that NIST do believe 'pancaking' occurred at any time. In addition, Bazant’s theory (which obviously discusses the collapse progression) assumes not floor to floor, but column to column impacts, also discounting a ‘pancake’ collapse theory.

Second, yes the ‘pancake’ collapse theory must assume the floors are detached from the core columns (see NOVA simulation) or simply not address the cores at all (a.k.a. the booNy method – sorry booNy, no hard feelings). In all, it is a thoroughly debunked theory that neither NIST or Bazant rely on, and would have left a stack of floors at the end of collapse, which we see never existed at ground zero. It is not the floors and ‘pancaking’ that need to be discussed, rather the core structures which did overwhelming work in holding the buildings upright, and their method of destruction.

This is an interesting one, and I shamelessly offer up another glimpse into the cartoonland physics in my brain for evisceration, and again bear with me as we move at a glacial pace through these points. My immediate thought is how does this continuous core structure make any difference, the principles and physical laws are the same as far as where the damage front is. Here's a quote from you on the past thread where you guys discussed this in April: "What actually happens is that the lower block, upper block and compression of the debris continuously come together at the same moment and forces are distributed equally and opposite between each." I believe what you are essentially saying there, and I think you referenced it maybe before on another post, is that the impact or force threshold is right in the middle of the middle debris, and I don't see how that is possible unless the middle debris is completely motionless and the blocks are pressing into it from either side with the same force; they are not.

I need to clarify here - I don’t believe the force is literally central to the debris layer across the collapse front, but through various failure modes and locations that the overall balance of forces are distributed equally between the upper and lower blocks. I drew a straight line across the debris zone as a simplification. To be more accurate I could have drawn a zigzag line across the collapse zone reaching from the lower to the upper block. This would better represent the chaotic nature of the collapse with column failures occurring both in the lower block connections, upper block connections and/or bending/buckling of columns compressed between the continuous core structure.

In my example where the 80th floor is vaporized, and I agreed that the 79th story and 81st story, the boundaries of the intact lower and upper blocks, are both compressed equally (in theory) when the upper block falls on the lower, and thus both become part of the collapse lair. What I don't understand is that you don't seem to be acknowledging how the positions of these masses have changed during this event. The 81st story initially falls into the position occupied by the vaporized 80th story, impacts the 79th story, collapses and then falls into the position of the upper half portion let's say of the formerly intact 79th floor; even just from the point of collapse, the part of the collapsed layer composed only of the 81st story has a velocity downward and thus must be adding to the force downward on the remaining lower block. As stories in the lower part collapse, the mass of these previously collapsed stories must move downward.

When the 81^st story falls into the position occupied by the vaporized 80^th story and impacts the 79^th story, equal and opposite damage must occur, with the debris of both then compressed into position of the 79^th story (though perhaps actually numerous columns of the 79^th and 80^th stories have not yet completely failed but continue to punch through the upper and lower blocks respectively, i.e. there is not an instantaneous failure of a whole story ‘across the board’). I think that you account for all of this.

Next... how is the intact 78^th story then destroyed if not for continued momentum of the intact 82^nd story (those two stories between which the continuous debris is now compressed)? I don’t see where you’re going from here without either 1) assuming that at the maximum debris compression all of the lower connections, but not upper connections, are broke and 2) assuming a clear drop between “floors” [urgh].

I try in my brain to account for the more detailed things you're saying whose significance is slowly sinking in; that the upper block is deteriorating, that there is a core structure, that the lower portion is stronger than the upper, and I'm having trouble seeing how this makes any difference. Let's say that the collapse is not full; for a second, let's just say the upper block falls through 10 stories and then the strength of the lower block arrests any further collapse. Even in this scenario, I would expect there to be more damage to the lower section; the upper block never experiences a force that is not proportional to it's own remaining weight, the lower block experiences a force proportional to the upper block and the necessarily moving middle debris.

In the above example you are assuming there is literally a ‘space’ within the collapse front to participate a ‘fall’, where actually there is a continuous structure and a crush down. Due to resistance of the lower block, column failures in the upper block rather than lower block and bending/buckling columns, I don’t accept the claim that the debris in the lower block is “necessarily” immediately moving down. I think you are applying both of the factors 1) & 2) previously mentioned above.

As I've thought through the crumple scenario, I understand that the connections between the collapsed layer and the collapsing lower block layer can present an upward resistance due to having some remaining structural integrity, but to me that just moves (I think, very tentatively) the force front up from the actual bottom of the collapsed layer to a point somewhat upward a little bit, but absolutely not to the middle of the moving middle debris layer.

Why do impact forces not occur to the middle, if a column failure occurs in the middle? Why not to the top, if the column failure occurs at the top?

If the force is truly equal at the middle of the debris layer, than how is there extra force causing it to move position? The middle debris layer in motion downward has a force, where is that force being dissipated to if the forces on either side of it are equal? I think an answer to these questions might help me see what you are saying.

I don’t think these questions are relevant since I clarified that the force is not truly equal at the middle of the debris layer; rather the overall distribution being approximately equal. I think the extra force you are looking for which drives the debris down is in momentum of the upper block. However, the distribution of that force at the impact point(s) is still equal and opposite.

Or, think of Gage's example that I don't really like, showing a car and a semi-truck and asking which takes more damage. This is a misleading analogy. If you don't think so, empty the trailer of the semi, flip it around 180 degrees, and now drop the car on it, and watch as it falls right through the structure of the empty trailer until it hits the truck cab, causing a lot more 'damage' to the semi.

See, here you’re having to assume unequal structures or significant ‘empty space’ or a literal ‘fall’.

This is just an opinion, I can't know obviously, but I have trouble believing that you wouldn't bring up pretty much what swan has brought up if this model showed something that did not fit with your theory; of course, the 'mass, strength, and detail of the tower construction' are critical to the validity of any results we are trying to derive from it, especially in something as enormously chaotic as this event. I think you'd be laughing at anyone who referred to this vaguely as a 'physics model' for the collapse if the results did not fit with the conclusions of your other evidence and reasoning.

No, the model could be based on wood, card or lego blocks – it is not critical to demonstrating the physics involved, equal and opposite forces for instance, in a collapse.

And you assume too much here. I would love a computer based physics model that demonstrated Bazant’s theory possible, I'd be in wonder of this new scientific discovery – the fact is that no such model exists because Bazant’s theory is a violation of the laws of physics, in particular Newton’s third law, inbuilt to such computer packages. You can look at numerous simulations which all prove the point.

Here is another: -

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w8RCJs_nA4[/media]

Note how the upper block deteriorates throughout the collapse at a rate approximately equal to the lower block. Had this collapse initiated from a much higher level, like that of WTC1, rather than mid-level, there would come a point where collapse of the lower structure will no longer progress.

Equal and opposite destruction of the upper and lower blocks in congruence with actual video footage of the WTC1 collapse. You can look at these models all day and find none that support Bazant’s indestructible upper block piledriver. It is almost inconceivable that I would ever be put in the disadvantageous position of having to question the inbuilt physics within a computer model, so your assumption is unfounded.

Yes, under this model I do think I see what you are calling telescoping. Where is the telescoping happening though, isn't the upper block being shoved down into the lower block which is causing floors to fail and such as the lower block makes room for it? Maybe I'm not ready to get to telescoping yet.

Yes... if for some reason you assume that all of the lower connections are failing but not the upper. But ok, you see that the upper block is disappearing at an equal or greater speed than the lower block in the model, and I presume you see this in the actual video footage too. Which brings us onto the next point (where I believe we are getting somewhere)...

I do think that it is reasonable to say that the upper block was breaking up to some unknown extent, but I don't know what that is then showing. If it's breaking up into large chunks held together by a still intact steel skeleton, it's going to behave differently than if it's just pulverized as it goes. The upper block breaks up, but it's mass is being continually replenished as the top of the lower block fails and moves downward, and the mass may be growing at a rate faster than the structure of the lower section is getting stronger as you move to the lower floors. This is a lot of extremely detailed interaction that has to be teased out.

What you describe here (and also further down in your post) is Bazant’s worst nightmare – deterioration of his indestructible piledriver. Let me quote a couple of excerpts, central to Bazant’s whole theory, from his papers: -

"An important hypothesis implied in this analysis is that the impacting upper part, many floors in height, is so stiff that it does not bend nor shear on vertical planes, and that the distribution of column displacements across the tower is almost linear, like for a rigid body. If, however, the upper part spanned only a few floors (say, 3 to 6), then it could be so flexible that different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times, producing a series of small impacts that would not be fatal."

And: -

"In theory, it further follows from the last point that, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the lower part of the tower might have been saved by exploding the upper part or weakening it by some ‘‘smart-structure’’ system so as to make it collapse gradually, as a mass of rubble, instead of impacting the lower part at one instant as an almost rigid body."

The “smart-structure” proposed above has precisely the same effect as the deterioration of the upper block that we witness. As we see, once the upper block becomes as you said, “chunks” or “breaks up”, or to put it in Bazant’s terms, “flexible” or “weakened”, all rather than “stiff” and “rigid”, then everything changes – the, “impacting the lower part at one instant”, which Bazant relies upon to continually overload each story, no longer applies, the lower part of the structure could be saved and the calculations as they currently stand can be thrown out of the window as worthless.

It is to avoid this outcome that Bazant tries so hard to promote his indestructible piledriver, achieved through shifting forces only to contact the lower block but never the upper which is driving the collapse. It’s madness... madness! According to all of the above the WTC1 lower block must survive in reality... yet it does not... why?... because the lower block was weakened by demolition charges prior to and during the collapses! The corroborating eyewitness evidence of which I presented to you in a previous post.

You have specific seismic evidence that shows that it was specifically the upper block that was breaking up?

To be specific - there is evidence in the seismic record of reduced activity in the moment where the upper block has fallen through its own height (the time when application of equal and opposite forces between the blocks indicates the upper block should be fully deteriorated). My suggestion is that the reduced activity reading occurs specifically due to the “series of small[er] impacts” which Bazant describes would occur with the breaking of the upper block, and because the “impacting [of] the lower part at one instant as an almost rigid body” no longer applies, thus no such single large impact force. This reduced reading should not occur in the midst a ‘natural’ progressive collapse of ever greater mass and velocity as Bazant’s theory supposes. The reduced reading matches the time where I have indicated I see the collapse momentum slow in video footage.

There is no way the official theory can explain these moments of reduced seismic activity during the collapses other than to claim they are randomly generated. It’s just a shame that the reduced reading occurs after the upper block has fallen through its own height in the case of both towers, i.e. it is not a random occurrence at all.

What does all of this indicate?

That the upper block deteriorated, in accordance with the rest of my argument.
That momentum was lost due to deterioration of the upper block.
That collapse resumed through a method other than the upper block momentum.

You don’t need me to tell you the other method that resumed the collapse activity.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Q24

September 14, 2012

First, the main NIST report does not go into how the tower collapses progressed – it stops at the point of collapse initiation and then defers to Bazant’s hypothesis. This is actually a large criticism of the official study – the fact there has never been an official study which investigated actual observations during the collapses after initiation. It is not clear in the later FAQ (where the quote I provided came from) whether NIST are still referring only to the initial failure or including the progression of collapse after the initiation. Based on the wording, “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems” and “Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon” it can be suggested that NIST do not believe the phenomenon occurred at any time – there is certainly no indication whatsoever that NIST do believe 'pancaking' occurred at any time. In addition, Bazant’s theory (which obviously discusses the collapse progression) assumes not floor to floor, but column to column impacts, also discounting a ‘pancake’ collapse theory.

Bazant's limiting case isn't a theory attempting to detail the actual collapses. How many times do you need to be corrected about that?

He does discuss the likely progression of collapse briefly, which does include 'pancake' elements, but the primary content of his actual paper is describing a best case scenario. Before getting into that best case scenario, he discusses the likely scenario of failure in the second paragraph of his initial paper, and described further on page 2.

He refers to figures 1 and 2:

2nd paragraph:

In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C. The heating is probably accelerated by a loss of the protective thermal insulation of steel during the initial blast. At such temperatures, structural steel suffers a decrease of yield strength and exhibits significant viscoplastic deformation (i.e., creep—an increase of deformation under sustained load). This leads to creep buckling of columns (Bazant and Cedolin 1991, Sec. 9), which consequently lose their load carrying capacity (stage 2). Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even though it is not heated. This causes failure of an underlying multifloor segment of the tower (stage 4), in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the framed tube, with the buckles probably spanning the height of many floors (stage 5, at right), and the upper part possibly getting wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube (stage 5, at left). The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture in the plastic hinges. The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again by an even larger mass falling with a greater velocity, and the series of impacts and failures then proceeds all the way down (stage 5).

And from page 2:

Many plastic failure mechanisms could be considered, for example: (1) the columns of the underlying floor buckle locally (Fig. 1, stage 2); (2) the floorsupporting trusses are sheared off at the connections to the framed tube and to the core columns and fall down within the tube, depriving the core columns and the framed tube of lateral support, and thus promoting buckling of the core columns and of the framed tube under vertical compression [Fig. 1, stage 4, and Fig. 2©]; or (3) the upper part is partly wedged within the emptied framed tube of the lower part, pushing the walls of the framed tube apart (Fig. 1, stage 5). Although each of these mechanisms can be shown to lead to total collapse, a combination of the last two seems more realistic [the reason: multistory pieces of the framed tube, with nearly straight boundaries apparently corresponding to plastic hinge lines causing buckles on the framed tube wall, were photographed falling down, "Massive 2001"; American 2001].

Second, yes the ‘pancake’ collapse theory must assume the floors are detached from the core columns (see NOVA simulation) or simply not address the cores at all (a.k.a. the booNy method – sorry booNy, no hard feelings). In all, it is a thoroughly debunked theory that neither NIST or Bazant rely on, and would have left a stack of floors at the end of collapse, which we see never existed at ground zero. It is not the floors and ‘pancaking’ that need to be discussed, rather the core structures which did overwhelming work in holding the buildings upright, and their method of destruction.

Why do you misrepresent my position Q24? Is it because you don't understand it or is it because the only way you can dismiss it is to invent a strawman argument?

I don't ignore the cores and I never have.

The 'pancake' element which I contend did take place is the same element mentioned by Bazant's description of the upper block being partially wedged within the exterior walls of the lower block due primarily to tilting. Throughout collapse, portions of the core are failing as this combination of events takes place.

September 14, 2012

The only ignorance here is yours, of the point. I am saying that the material properties do not affect the laws of physics. If you disagree, instead of simply stating your disagreement to keep up the visage of an argument, you should explain how you think material properties affect the laws of physics. Actually don’t bother, I’m not interested in whatever nonsense you come back with.

Do you think that there is any significance in the Blender simulation producing complete collapse without any need for demolition charges? If not, why not? You seem to be cherry-picking the bits you agree with and ignoring the rest. As LG says, you'd laugh this out of court if I brought it up as proof of no demolition, but since some bits of it agree with what you want to have happened, in your world those bits must be correct.

Absolutely laughable - your claim truly is a joke. I wouldn’t be so harsh on others, but you should know better. I have to question whether you are either completely ignorant, structuring your sentences wrong or are simply a liar. Furthermore, anyone who gives even cursory glance to NCSTAR 1-2 (which is all about validation of the simulations through comparison to observables, i.e. the superficial damage appearance) will suss you out in very quick order.
NCSTAR 1-2 Chapter 9.11 COMPARISON WITH OBSERVABLES: -

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101015

Again, I’m not interested in what nonsense you come back with. After years of supposedly studying the NIST reports, to then come out with the above ridiculous statement renders your opinion void and discussion with you pointless.

For the comparison of observed and predicted failure modes, see NCSTAR 1-2, figure 7-73.

Above you said that NIST’s methods did not involve matching the simulations with observables. Now you get into discussion of... NIST’s matching of the simulations with observables. Brilliant.

I didn't say that simulations and observables were not matched, I said they were matched by factors other than superficial appearance.

You previously claimed, and are still attempting to give the false impression, that comparison of the actual impact wall damage to the base and severe cases provided a, quote - “equally good” - match. NIST said nothing of the sort and indeed we have seen that comparison shows the base case to be a better match. This you continue to hide from, as I predicted in my last post that you would.

NCSTAR 1-2B p292 The mode and magnitude of the calculated and observed impact damage on the exterior wall were still in good agreement in this more severe impact analysis.

As you are ignorant, constructed your sentence wrong or lied about the above impact wall damage, you now do the same regarding the floor damage. NIST did not say that the severe case gave better match to the floor damage. The floor damage could not even be seen clearly enough to make an accurate comparison. It is an absolute fabrication of yours, which again a brief reading of NCSTAR 1-2 will reveal.

OK, I'll give you that one..

As you are ignorant, constructed your sentence wrong or lied about the above impact wall damage and floor damage, you now do the same regarding the exit wall damage. In this area there were numerous factors which did not rely on the aircraft impact parameters at all, namely the office layout which NIST admit was unknown. Why do you think NIST describe comparison to the impacted wall as “Very significant” but comparison to the exit wall as only “Slightly significant”? Never mind, I’m not interested in your answer.

But you won't admit I'm right about this one, instead you shift the goalposts and start quibbling about significance.

September 15, 2012

I’m not sure it is relevant either – the ‘pancake’ collapse theory which is premised on a progressive failure of the “floors” has been widely dismissed. I’ll still answer some of your questions...

Let me clarify, I think what I'm thinking of as pancaking may not be the same as the 'pancake theory'. I understand that in reality it is very chaotic, but for the purposes of conversation concerning Newton and damage, is one floor failing at a time sequentially, the one closest to the debris layer? It doesn't have to freefall, it is crushed down, but the floor immediately underneath it stays intact until the downward force front presses fully on or impacts it? Is it just a continuous even crumple, or does it take more force to for example to make the actual floor, or core column, give away, so that it is a jerky stuttered collapse? I'm not necessarily asking about the actual collapse, I'm trying to add these parameters to my tower with just floors whose behavior we agreed on, to which we are going to go into how the addition of the core changes those results.

I need to clarify here - I don’t believe the force is literally central to the debris layer across the collapse front, but through various failure modes and locations that the overall balance of forces are distributed equally between the upper and lower blocks. I drew a straight line across the debris zone as a simplification. To be more accurate I could have drawn a zigzag line across the collapse zone reaching from the lower to the upper block. This would better represent the chaotic nature of the collapse with column failures occurring both in the lower block connections, upper block connections and/or bending/buckling of columns compressed between the continuous core structure.

This is a distinction without a difference, I used the center just for convenience of discussion, but the objection is the same. The overall balance of forces cannot be distributed equally between the blocks, I'm glad you said 'forces' and not damage here, it should help clarify this discussion. Let me get a clarification too, you said you agreed with my summary of the floors only collapse behavior, which included, "the upper block hits the lower block, both the impacting floors in both blocks fail and are shoved downward to impact the next floor which fails, but doesn't necessarily cause a failure in the remaining upper block lowest floor as some of the upward force has been absorbed by the previous floors moving downward as a layer between the remaining upper block and remaining lower block." You don't think that the balance of forces are equally distributed in that case, correct?

When the 81^st story falls into the position occupied by the vaporized 80^th story and impacts the 79^th story, equal and opposite damage must occur, with the debris of both then compressed into position of the 79^th story (though perhaps actually numerous columns of the 79^th and 80^th stories have not yet completely failed but continue to punch through the upper and lower blocks respectively, i.e. there is not an instantaneous failure of a whole story ‘across the board’). I think that you account for all of this.
Next... how is the intact 78^th story then destroyed if not for continued momentum of the intact 82^nd story (those two stories between which the continuous debris is now compressed)? I don’t see where you’re going from here without either 1) assuming that at the maximum debris compression all of the lower connections, but not upper connections, are broke and 2) assuming a clear drop between “floors” [urgh].

The intact 78th story is destroyed by the continued momentum of the intact 82nd story and upper block and the now compressed 81st and 79th stories; the 82nd floor is never in contact with the 78th directly, the middle layer is between them, this whole issue is what you are doing, mostly not doing, with this middle layer. Let's go back again to the first impact and purely focus on the activity of the the 79th floor, and draw a mental line at the altitude that bisects the 79th story cutting it into an upper and lower half, each containing let's say 1/2 the total mass of the 79th story. Let's say that the compression happens and compresses the entire 79th story below our bisect line, and the mass of the story is now fully in the lower section. In order for this to occur, the entire mass of the 79th floor that was above our bisect line now has a velocity. I'm not good with the differences and applications of momentum, force, and kinetic energy, but I do know they all involve mass and motion, and part of the mass of the 79th floor has both, downward. That is a force that the lower block must sustain itself against, and thus the balance of forces for the 79th story is not equalled out within the mass of the 79th story, the force front is at or toward the bottom of this 79th story. No force derived from the compressing 79th floor mass is vectored upward towards the upper block, outside of it's structural resistance which is vectoring downward also, and the 79th floor mass is obviously not motionless. Q, or anyone else, but mostly Q, am I wrong here? Now obviously, add the force derived from the upper block and you have force(upper block + middle layer mass) exerting on the lower block and force(upper block) on the upper block; this is the case whether the next floor collapses or not, the lower block has to withstand more force than the upper block. The reason the upper block is exerting a force at all is because it is moving and from gravity, just like the middle layer. I don't get how you don't get this, but as always I'm willing to stand corrected. Whether the story fails instantaneously or not, no matter how you'd like to generate the compression, I'm not quite sure how the 'connections' fit in, the compression moves the mass downward, thus that mass has a force exerting downward and is still acted on by gravity.

In the above example you are assuming there is literally a ‘space’ within the collapse front to participate a ‘fall’, where actually there is a continuous structure and a crush down. Due to resistance of the lower block, column failures in the upper block rather than lower block and bending/buckling columns, I don’t accept the claim that the debris in the lower block is “necessarily” immediately moving down. I think you are applying both of the factors 1) & 2) previously mentioned above.

I don't think there necessarily does need to be a space, and I don't think it needs to immediately move down. By definition, if the story is collapsing, it must be moving downward, it is obviously not moving upward as it compresses and is not staying motionless or it wouldn't be compressing.

Why do impact forces not occur to the middle, if a column failure occurs in the middle? Why not to the top, if the column failure occurs at the top?

This depends on which model we want to talk about I think, depending on what you say to my questions above about the 'pancaking' issue might make this easier to analyze for me. I think you are now mixing in, which I haven't thought of yet because of how chaotic it is, that these masses will fail at their weakest point. I don't think this makes much of a difference as far as the net forces acting on the upper and lower blocks.

I don’t think these questions are relevant since I clarified that the force is not truly equal at the middle of the debris layer; rather the overall distribution being approximately equal. I think the extra force you are looking for which drives the debris down is in momentum of the upper block. However, the distribution of that force at the impact point(s) is still equal and opposite.

The most relevant question there is what are you doing with the force generated by the downward movement of the debris layer. Do you dispute that it is in motion downwards? Doesn't it then have a momentum/force downward that must be accounted for?

No, the model could be based on wood, card or lego blocks – it is not critical to demonstrating the physics involved, equal and opposite forces for instance, in a collapse.

You are not trying to demonstrate equal and opposite forces, you are basing an argument on the output of the physics involved and are arguing that it is equal and opposite damage to the original blocks. I don't know much about physics, but I know quite a bit about software development. You have three components, your inputs, your program or algorithm, and your outputs. We have a saying in IT that is entirely applicable here, "garbage in, garbage out", and with the mass, strength, and detail of the tower not being accurate, and these clearly being, duh, the most important inputs, your output is garbage. It's like taking accounting software, entering in your starting balance sheet, and then putting in inaccurate expenses and revenues and because it happens to come out with a profit, this is evidence that the company is actually profitable. And your point is all about the output; this physics model is part of the reason that the upper block disintegrating is 'obvious'. This is an especially baffling position for you to take as you just agreed with me in the floors-only case that the damage is not equal between the upper and lower block, but as we are slowly getting to, the core changes this; isn't that a good indication that the mass and strength and detail of the tower is crucial to the behavior? You don't think the output of this model with concrete floors and lego columns is going to result in the same collapses as vice-versa? I'll give you that it's a clever attempt at an argument, but this model shows nothing except that the algorithm is probably correct.

And you assume too much here. I would love a computer based physics model that demonstrated Bazant’s theory possible, I'd be in wonder of this new scientific discovery – the fact is that no such model exists because Bazant’s theory is a violation of the laws of physics, in particular Newton’s third law, inbuilt to such computer packages. You can look at numerous simulations which all prove the point.

I really haven't gotten too far into Bazant so I'll have to pause on him but thanks as always for the info and elaboration of your position. If the model we've been talking about starts to intersect with his, let me know. I do want to look in more detail at his paper, I'm quite skeptical of this violation of Newton stuff but can't refute it at this point and the paper I saw had quite a bit of math that I don't remember so it'll take me a while to trudge through it. Let's see what your response is to the argument above against your previous model you offered and make sure that's settled before moving on to more 'simulations' of unknown accuracy and applicability.

September 15, 2012

It might be helpful to see an example of what happens at the point where steel buckles and loses almost all of its load bearing capacity.

The load it was previously carrying falls almost completely unimpeded.

September 17, 2012

Let me clarify, I think what I'm thinking of as pancaking may not be the same as the 'pancake theory'. I understand that in reality it is very chaotic, but for the purposes of conversation concerning Newton and damage, is one floor failing at a time sequentially, the one closest to the debris layer? It doesn't have to freefall, it is crushed down, but the floor immediately underneath it stays intact until the downward force front presses fully on or impacts it? Is it just a continuous even crumple, or does it take more force to for example to make the actual floor, or core column, give away, so that it is a jerky stuttered collapse? I'm not necessarily asking about the actual collapse, I'm trying to add these parameters to my tower with just floors whose behavior we agreed on, to which we are going to go into how the addition of the core changes those results.

I think any conversation of a “sequential” failure of “floors” is utterly pointless. We could apply Newton’s third law to such a scenario, but it would be irrelevant as the application is changed in a way not reflective of what occurred on 9/11.

Whichever model we use, a natural progressive collapse certainly should be stuttered as energy is expended through the impacts. Though the degree is impreceptible to the naked eye, it should be detected by closer analysis. There is a very good and simple to understand paper, “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis”. Co-written by an American professor and mechanical engineer, the paper discusses the missing jolt at the initial impact and also ties in with some of the areas we have discussed including Newton’s third law. Definitely worth a read: -

http://www.journalof...issingJolt7.pdf

This is a distinction without a difference, I used the center just for convenience of discussion, but the objection is the same. The overall balance of forces cannot be distributed equally between the blocks, I'm glad you said 'forces' and not damage here, it should help clarify this discussion. Let me get a clarification too, you said you agreed with my summary of the floors only collapse behavior, which included, "the upper block hits the lower block, both the impacting floors in both blocks fail and are shoved downward to impact the next floor which fails, but doesn't necessarily cause a failure in the remaining upper block lowest floor as some of the upward force has been absorbed by the previous floors moving downward as a layer between the remaining upper block and remaining lower block." You don't think that the balance of forces are equally distributed in that case, correct?

That is correct - I do not think the forces are equal if, unlike on 9/11, you want to talk about a “sequential” failure of “floors” falling on one another. You know the problem I have with those words. When are we going to discuss a realistic model?

The intact 78th story is destroyed by the continued momentum of the intact 82nd story and upper block and the now compressed 81st and 79th stories; the 82nd floor is never in contact with the 78th directly, the middle layer is between them, this whole issue is what you are doing, mostly not doing, with this middle layer. Let's go back again to the first impact and purely focus on the activity of the the 79th floor, and draw a mental line at the altitude that bisects the 79th story cutting it into an upper and lower half, each containing let's say 1/2 the total mass of the 79th story. Let's say that the compression happens and compresses the entire 79th story below our bisect line, and the mass of the story is now fully in the lower section. In order for this to occur, the entire mass of the 79th floor that was above our bisect line now has a velocity. I'm not good with the differences and applications of momentum, force, and kinetic energy, but I do know they all involve mass and motion, and part of the mass of the 79th floor has both, downward. That is a force that the lower block must sustain itself against, and thus the balance of forces for the 79th story is not equalled out within the mass of the 79th story, the force front is at or toward the bottom of this 79th story. No force derived from the compressing 79th floor mass is vectored upward towards the upper block, outside of it's structural resistance which is vectoring downward also, and the 79th floor mass is obviously not motionless. Q, or anyone else, but mostly Q, am I wrong here?

That would be to imply that all structure across the 79^th story failed and began downward movement at the initial impact, rather than to accept failures in the 81^st story and separate compression of that story. Why, “focus purely on the activity of the 79^th floor”? I think that line very telling. Why not also accept that alternatively structure initially failed in the 81^st story, draw a line to bisect that story, the lower portion of which did not fail until encountered by the 82^nd story, or even the 83^rd, or 84th? All the while, the upper block sustaining damage.

And of course whilst compressing there are forces vectored upwards. The initial direction of forces is not a factor to the equal and opposite distribution of forces at impact. Of course velocity of one object means the mass may continue to move in the same direction, and I don’t have a problem with the continued downward movement in the tower collapses (I’m not expecting the collapses to stop in their tracks upon impact of any story – at least not until that upper block is broken - more on that later), but throughout the collapses, right from the initiation, there should be generally equal and opposite forces applied to the upper block and lower block.

The most relevant question there is what are you doing with the force generated by the downward movement of the debris layer. Do you dispute that it is in motion downwards? Doesn't it then have a momentum/force downward that must be accounted for?

I dispute that the debris within the building footprint enters immediate downward motion or falls on the lower block; it is always driven by the upper block, which itself must sustain continued damage in doing so.

You are not trying to demonstrate equal and opposite forces, you are basing an argument on the output of the physics involved and are arguing that it is equal and opposite damage to the original blocks. I don't know much about physics, but I know quite a bit about software development. You have three components, your inputs, your program or algorithm, and your outputs. We have a saying in IT that is entirely applicable here, "garbage in, garbage out", and with the mass, strength, and detail of the tower not being accurate, and these clearly being, duh, the most important inputs, your output is garbage. ... This is an especially baffling position for you to take as you just agreed with me in the floors-only case that the damage is not equal between the upper and lower block, but as we are slowly getting to, the core changes this; isn't that a good indication that the mass and strength and detail of the tower is crucial to the behavior?

The continuous nature of the structures in the simulations is infinitely more accurate than any “floors-only case”. Find any continuous structure where the weaker and lesser upper mass suffers negligible damage whilst continuing to crush to pieces the stronger and greater lower mass. It’s a nonesense which no computer based physics program could replicate. Tell me, why do you think only those accused of Lysenko-like tendencies and political favortism by their peers, producing back of an envelope, pre-conceived hypothesis can achieve this miracle?

I really haven't gotten too far into Bazant so I'll have to pause on him but thanks as always for the info and elaboration of your position. If the model we've been talking about starts to intersect with his, let me know. I do want to look in more detail at his paper, I'm quite skeptical of this violation of Newton stuff but can't refute it at this point and the paper I saw had quite a bit of math that I don't remember so it'll take me a while to trudge through it. Let's see what your response is to the argument above against your previous model you offered and make sure that's settled before moving on to more 'simulations' of unknown accuracy and applicability.

I don’t think we need pause any longer since you accepted these two vital points in your previous post: -

I do think that it is reasonable to say that the upper block was breaking up to some unknown extent, but I don't know what that is then showing. If it's breaking up into large chunks held together by a still intact steel skeleton, it's going to behave differently than if it's just pulverized as it goes. The upper block breaks up, but it's mass is being continually replenished as the top of the lower block fails and moves downward, and the mass may be growing at a rate faster than the structure of the lower section is getting stronger as you move to the lower floors. This is a lot of extremely detailed interaction that has to be teased out.

I don't think the upper block kept it's full structure through the whole collapse, and I thought it tilted at the very initiation of the collapse (again, might be mixing collapses). The effect this had seems to me to be dependent on to what extent this break-up happened, did it happen faster than mass was being gained from the collapsing lower block, how much did it break up, how much became 'fluid' I guess so that there is greater opportunity for the force of gravity to be deflected or flow over or in open spaces in the structure, but it still has mass that must be accounted for.

This is agreement enough in regard to Newton’s third law, even without resolving our other differences above, to put a final nail in the coffin of the official collapse theory. With our acceptance of the above, there is no official collapse theory. You only need understand that the official collapse theory relies on the upper blocks remaining intact/rigid throughout the collapses, and itself argues that otherwise the collapses would not progress.

This is the point where official story adherents usually take a step back from their previous statements and/or deny they ever meant what they said... so I await your response with interest...

September 17, 2012

I think any conversation of a “sequential” failure of “floors” is utterly pointless. We could apply Newton’s third law to such a scenario, but it would be irrelevant as the application is changed in a way not reflective of what occurred on 9/11.

How does the application of Newton's third law change exactly?

Whichever model we use, a natural progressive collapse certainly should be stuttered as energy is expended through the impacts. Though the degree is impreceptible to the naked eye, it should be detected by closer analysis. There is a very good and simple to understand paper, “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis”. Co-written by an American professor and mechanical engineer, the paper discusses the missing jolt at the initial impact and also ties in with some of the areas we have discussed including Newton’s third law. Definitely worth a read: -

http://www.journalof...issingJolt7.pdf

As interesting as this paper may be, it still does nothing to refute Bazant's limiting case. It is a comparison of apples and oranges.

September 17, 2012

How does the application of Newton's third law change exactly?

Ohhh you make me despair sometimes – you know how because we have been over it. The vastly different models alter location of the force application: -

I’m hopeful, rather than confident, that you see difference between the first and second images...

If we talk about “floors” with little to no intermediary structure (because each lower story in particular is assumed completely and immediately destroyed upon contact with the upper mass), then the sequence of freefall drops is going to create forces applied from the lowermost impacted story. This is what you propose.

If we accept the core structure (which consisted of continuous columns and open elevator shafts and stairwells, i.e. limited “floors”) then the opportunity for freefall, where the upper block in isolation builds a ‘debris shield’ and suffers reduced force at subsequent impacts, is removed – the intermediary structure throughout collapse providing as much of a ‘shield’ to the lower block as the upper block and resulting in overall equal and opposite damage to the blocks. This is what I propose.

In reality the structures and collapses were more like the second description above – this supported by the known construction, computer physics models of continuous structures and evidence of the collapses, for instance, the 60 story lower core column ‘spire’ which penetrated right through the upper block, the loss of momentum witnessed in video footage and the seismic record, the continued rotation/displacement of the WTC1 antenna.

As interesting as this paper may be, it still does nothing to refute Bazant's limiting case. It is a comparison of apples and oranges.

So you somehow think that Bazant can put out apples and prove oranges. Actually, Bazant isn’t even that close – his theory is more like bananas. And with his false assumption of repeated freefall drops, column to column impacts, ever increasing momentum and an indestructible piledriver, etc, it is certainly not the conservative case to the lower block survival that you want to believe. It is only conservative to halting the upper block in its tracks – an impossible task; a strawman setup to fail.

What we need to accept, as LG does, and you once did before recoiling in terror at the implication of your own statements, is that the upper block must, and did, deteriorate throughout the collapse. This is in accordance with Newton to a level I’m quite content with. That itself removes Bazant’s theory as a viable solution – leaving no official explanation at all. Then you are on your own and we can discuss what happens next...

Since you have been shown to backtrack from those previous acceptances which are found to put your position in severe peril, and also don’t understand how a broken upper block refutes Bazant’s theory, I don’t think the discussion of what happens next is for you.

September 17, 2012

Bazant’s theory, I don’t think the discussion of what happens next is for you.

Where's the evidence that explosives were used?

Edited September 17, 2012 by skyeagle409

September 17, 2012

Where's the evidence that explosives were used?

Clearly far outside of your comprehension is where. If anyone is genuinely interested, the evidence for explosives here is in the argument over the last few pages that the WTC1 upper block alone could not complete the collapse. Just a suggestion, but it’s sometimes better not to interrupt discussions that you don’t understand (especially with random and distracting videos that are nothing to do with the current discussion). Or if you really feel the need, at least do it with a question that shows you have read and tried to grasp the previous discussion (basics such as how the argument is intended to demonstrate the use of explosives are a good starting point). Otherwise you just look like a troll or simpleton.

I'm going to put you back on ignore skyeagle.

September 17, 2012

Clearly far outside of your comprehension is where.

No evidence, no case. :no:

If anyone is genuinely interested, the evidence for explosives here is in the argument over the last few pages that the WTC1 upper block alone could not complete the collapse.

That doesn't work because there is no evidence of bomb explosions seen on video, nor heard on audio and in fact, no explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the area. Add to the fact that demolition experts roaming around in the WTC rubble did not find evidence of explosives.

In addition, notice this building collapsed without the use of explosives. What is the upper portion of that building during in relation to the collapse?

I will pose this question for you once again;

Where is your evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings?

No evidence of explosives, no case. :no:

Edited September 18, 2012 by skyeagle409

September 18, 2012

I think any conversation of a “sequential” failure of “floors” is utterly pointless. We could apply Newton’s third law to such a scenario, but it would be irrelevant as the application is changed in a way not reflective of what occurred on 9/11.
That is correct - I do not think the forces are equal if, unlike on 9/11, you want to talk about a “sequential” failure of “floors” falling on one another. You know the problem I have with those words. When are we going to discuss a realistic model?

We can go to a realistic model once we resolve this equal damage/Newton issue; unlike us arguing over our differences in epistemological standards and what specific words mean, this topic has a correct and an incorrect answer. I'm trying to use the word 'story' instead of 'floor' but I'm going to slip, it is the more common word. Unless I say 'true floor' meaning the mass that building occupants walk on, assume I mean the whole story.

That would be to imply that all structure across the 79^th story failed and began downward movement at the initial impact, rather than to accept failures in the 81^st story and separate compression of that story. Why, “focus purely on the activity of the 79^th floor”? I think that line very telling. Why not also accept that alternatively structure initially failed in the 81^st story, draw a line to bisect that story, the lower portion of which did not fail until encountered by the 82^nd story, or even the 83^rd, or 84th? All the while, the upper block sustaining damage.

I'm focusing on the 79th story because I'm trying to step through this; for the moment I don't care what you want to happen with the upper block, it doesn't matter. When the mass of the story compresses, it necessarily moves, that is what compression is. No part of the mass of the 79th story, in general, will be at a higher altitude post-compression than it was pre-compression, it has been crushed down. Thus the net motion and force of the mass of the compressed 79th story was downward. Thus this has a force on the lower block it is exerting which is not being exerted on the upper block. You know why the motion is down, because of gravity and the motion of the upper block. Go ahead, add in however you want the 81st to compress, you're not going to get that mass moving upward either, only downward.

Rereading your exchange with boony where he gave the horse and rider example, you argued kinda that the difference is we must think of this as one continuous structure if we have any hope of understanding your way of thinking on this. That the collapsing stories are 'joined' to the lower, which I think is of course reasonable. The obvious next question is, what is this 'joining' doing for your theory? Is it joined with most the strength and support of the original noncompressed steel or does it have the strength of aluminum foil, probably somewhere inbetween. I don't see what difference this makes. The middle mass is being pushed down by the upper block and gravity, it provides an additional downward force, it is what is in contact with the lower block, and it is thus a force absorber for forces travelling upward, so that the upper block is not sustaining damage at the rate the lower one is, in general of course.

And of course whilst compressing there are forces vectored upwards. The initial direction of forces is not a factor to the equal and opposite distribution of forces at impact. Of course velocity of one object means the mass may continue to move in the same direction, and I don’t have a problem with the continued downward movement in the tower collapses (I’m not expecting the collapses to stop in their tracks upon impact of any story – at least not until that upper block is broken - more on that later), but throughout the collapses, right from the initiation, there should be generally equal and opposite forces applied to the upper block and lower block.

You don't have a problem with the continued downward motion but you want to say that the forces/damage would be the same to the upper and lower block. We are to think of this as a continuous mass, that is changing shape as parts of its mass move in relation to one another. The upper block and the middle layer are both moving downward, the lower block is not moving. Thus the middle layer serves as a shield to the upper block, that's what shields do, they absorb forces. Yes, it absorbs forces for the lower block too, but the lower part of the shield, and lower block, must also absorb the force of the shield's mass itself moving downward, unlike the top part of this middle layer/shield.

I dispute that the debris within the building footprint enters immediate downward motion or falls on the lower block; it is always driven by the upper block, which itself must sustain continued damage in doing so.

That's not really what I asked, I said, "The most relevant question there is what are you doing with the force generated by the downward movement of the debris layer. Do you dispute that it is in motion downwards? Doesn't it then have a momentum/force downward that must be accounted for?". I don't know what 'immediate' has to do with anything right now. I'm trying to see at what specific point I disagree with you. "Yes, but..." is entirely valid answer to this question. I'd like to add to the model we agree on, so let me ask a couple things. Does the upper block and lower block experience the same damage and forces if the upper block were to be undamaged? I'm assuming not based on your responses. Let me add to my initial, 'pancake-like model', that you agreed with. Let's strengthen the attachments of the floors to the outside perimeter, but no core yet, and strengthen the outside perimeter itself. Vaporize the 80th story and the collapse commences. Now, in this scenario, this is all one 'joined' structure; no 'true floors' are actually breaking entirely free of the outer walls. Our 79th and 81st stories compress equally as agreed and the collapse continues, now, does this collapse behave any differently as far as the distribution of forces in your view? I believe it's the same as our initial scenario. Assuming that we agree on that, add your core and let me know just at that point if this changes the distribution to be equal. In other words, I'm trying to determine which point is the most critical difference between what your equal forces theory is that I can't currently envision, and the simple model we agree on. Again, is it all in how much damage the upper floor is taking? If I add the core and collapse but the upper block stays largely intact, does the collapse progress as in our original agreed-on scenario?

The continuous nature of the structures in the simulations is infinitely more accurate than any “floors-only case”. Find any continuous structure where the weaker and lesser upper mass suffers negligible damage whilst continuing to crush to pieces the stronger and greater lower mass. It’s a nonesense which no computer based physics program could replicate. Tell me, why do you think only those accused of Lysenko-like tendencies and political favortism by their peers, producing back of an envelope, pre-conceived hypothesis can achieve this miracle?

Geez, still with the absurd Lysenko references; again, I'll just proceed with 'precedent is now optional' for all further points. And ha, accused by whom, you? The 1700+ paranoid, self-aggrandizing, and attention-mongering architects and engineers who, in full congruence with the foundational tenet of science that it's conclusions are always tentative (/sarcasm), modestly proclaim they know 'the Truth'. I mean, if you find affixing labels based on 'could be' so compelling .

I don’t think we need pause any longer since you accepted these two vital points in your previous post:
This is agreement enough in regard to Newton’s third law, even without resolving our other differences above, to put a final nail in the coffin of the official collapse theory. With our acceptance of the above, there is no official collapse theory. You only need understand that the official collapse theory relies on the upper blocks remaining intact/rigid throughout the collapses, and itself argues that otherwise the collapses would not progress.

Sorry Q, I do not actually trust your interpretation of much right now, especially scientific studies where your statements derived from such studies need not be scientific themselves, merely 'founded' (see, "I think the study ruled out all possible fire and damage collapse scenarios", for reference).

This is the point where official story adherents usually take a step back from their previous statements and/or deny they ever meant what they said... so I await your response with interest...

Thank god I'm not one of those then. And I don't know why anyone needs to deny what they said, they can deny what you think they mean but that's different. It's not like there's some penalty for admitting being wrong, I'm all for someone convincing me that I'm wrong, I think I may have said plenty of incorrect things, even if it's just sloppiness of the words I've used, concerning physics already. But I am trying to understand what you are talking about on this point, and since we have a starting point, it seems like we should be able to single out the factor that is equalling out the forces on the upper and lower blocks.

September 18, 2012

Ohhh you make me despair sometimes – you know how because we have been over it. The vastly different models alter location of the force application: -

I’m hopeful, rather than confident, that you see difference between the first and second images...

Is this the kind of non-rudeness that you suggest we use for our interactions?

If we talk about “floors” with little to no intermediary structure (because each lower story in particular is assumed completely and immediately destroyed upon contact with the upper mass), then the sequence of freefall drops is going to create forces applied from the lowermost impacted story. This is what you propose.

If we accept the core structure (which consisted of continuous columns and open elevator shafts and stairwells, i.e. limited “floors”) then the opportunity for freefall, where the upper block in isolation builds a ‘debris shield’ and suffers reduced force at subsequent impacts, is removed – the intermediary structure throughout collapse providing as much of a ‘shield’ to the lower block as the upper block and resulting in overall equal and opposite damage to the blocks. This is what I propose.

Why are you dictating what I supposedly propose? I guess that perhaps this is just your misunderstanding of what I've conveyed, and perhaps that is because I may not have been adequately clear. Likewise, I asked you for clarification because I didn't fully understand what you meant, and perhaps that is because you may not have been adequately clear.

Now that you've produced an image and have these descriptions of what you appear to envision, I'll take another look at your meaning and respond with more depth later.

For now though, please understand that I have been primarily discussing three distinct things.

The actual collapses.
Bazant's limiting case.
Basic conceptual models intended to illustrate key principles involved.

I try not to intertwine these, but it probably happens at times inadvertently, and perhaps that is the source of your misconceptions regarding my position. As mentioned I'll respond with more depth later, but I do want to clarify that you appear to have a misconception about how I envision a great deal of this. I don't recall ever claiming, for example, that there was 'little to no intermediary structure.' I am honestly at a loss for how you could reach that conclusion.

In the future it might be helpful if you don't assume that you know what I intended to convey, and instead ask.

In reality the structures and collapses were more like the second description above – this supported by the known construction, computer physics models of continuous structures and evidence of the collapses, for instance, the 60 story lower core column ‘spire’ which penetrated right through the upper block, the loss of momentum witnessed in video footage and the seismic record, the continued rotation/displacement of the WTC1 antenna.

I will ask you again to substantiate this claimed 'loss of momentum witnessed in video footage and the seismic record.' As for the rotation/displacement of the WTC1 antenna, I've already proven that the chunk of antenna that you once believed was still attached to the supposedly fully rotated roof was in fact not attached to anything at all when it emerged from the debris cloud. Why you persist with this claim is truly baffling to me.

So you somehow think that Bazant can put out apples and prove oranges. Actually, Bazant isn’t even that close – his theory is more like bananas. And with his false assumption of repeated freefall drops, column to column impacts, ever increasing momentum and an indestructible piledriver, etc, it is certainly not the conservative case to the lower block survival that you want to believe. It is only conservative to halting the upper block in its tracks – an impossible task; a strawman setup to fail.

You readily admit that halting the upper block in its tracks is an impossible task. This is exactly what would have to happen for a gravity driven collapse to be stopped. How can you possibly not realize this?

What we need to accept, as LG does, and you once did before recoiling in terror at the implication of your own statements, is that the upper block must, and did, deteriorate throughout the collapse. This is in accordance with Newton to a level I’m quite content with. That itself removes Bazant’s theory as a viable solution – leaving no official explanation at all. Then you are on your own and we can discuss what happens next...

I have never said that the upper block didn't deteriorate throughout collapse. I've always maintained that the upper block sustained significant damage throughout collapse and I've never recoiled in terror from that position. Are you joking? I think this may fall back to your confusion between the actual collapses, Bazant's limiting case, and my efforts at simplified models to illustrate key concepts.

Bazant's limiting case is not an effort to mimic the actual collapses. Bazant's limiting case is an effort to provide a best case scenario for halting the upper block. He states quite clearly that his case is not realistic and that the actual collapses did not follow the assumptions he intentionally placed in the paper. Those assumptions he placed were for the benefit of building survival, despite what you may misunderstand about them.

Since you have been shown to backtrack from those previous acceptances which are found to put your position in severe peril, and also don’t understand how a broken upper block refutes Bazant’s theory, I don’t think the discussion of what happens next is for you.

Backtrack? What are you on about Q24? I haven't backtracked from anything, and you certainly haven't put my position in any kind of peril, severe or otherwise. It is this kind of dishonest accusation that makes me question your integrity. I will avoid that though, and I will assume that the accusation is simply a misunderstanding of my position and I will take partial responsibility if I haven't been clear enough in previous discussions. I have tried to explain my position in multiple ways, but you seem to not understand (hence why I've tried explaining it differently multiple times).

Also, you complain to me about rudeness, and after I suggest we try to interact in a respectful way you continue with this extremely disrespectful and condescending tone.

Why is that Q24?

Would you rather not have a civil discussion about these topics?

September 18, 2012

Just a suggestion, but it’s sometimes better not to interrupt discussions that you don’t understand (especially with random and distracting videos that are nothing to do with the current discussion).

Apparently, I have better knowledge of steel structures than you. In fact, I've worked with 4130 steel, among other metals, for use in jet engines for years and have been involved in annealing and heat-treating processes involving steel, which was part of my job as an aircraft structural technician. I had no doubt that the steel structure of the WTC buildings, in combination with impact damage, were unable to withstand the relentless fires raging within.

You might want to read what the American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc. had to say about the collapse of the WTC buildings because the report says that no building was designed to withstand the combination of extreme events suffered by the WTC buildings.

http://www.arquitecturaenacero.org/attachments/article/21/AISC%20-%20Fuego.pdf

In this video, you can see the buckling of WTC2 just as it begins to collapse and not one shred of evidence of a bomb explosion seen, nor heard. The buckling occurs at time line 0:16.

September 19, 2012

No need to despair Q.

Remember the old adage is quite true: one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink. One can lay it all out for a man, but one cannot make him think.

Cognitive dissonance and denial are powerful forces in the human psyche.

September 19, 2012

No need to despair Q.

Remember the old adage is quite true: one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make him drink. One can lay it all out for a man, but one cannot make him think.

One cannot change realilty from the comfort of his keyboard.

Talking Turkey

Recommended Posts

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

W Tell

Liquid Gardens

OverSword

Posted Images

flyingswan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

flyingswan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

flyingswan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Liquid Gardens

Link to comment

Share on other sites

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

skyeagle409

Link to comment

Share on other sites