1999 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 03 April 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Why is it that 'extremely poor models' are so rampant in the Official Explanation?

I guess part of the reason that very poor models indeed must be employed in an attempt to explain the apparent suspension of the laws of physics that day, both at WTC and elsewhere.

Simply put Babe Ruth, if you contend that there was any suspension of the laws of physics it is on you to define that suspension and show where it took place.

If you are referring to my self described poor model, the purpose was to illustrate a concept in very simple terms; not to accurately or fully model the collapse.


Edit to Add...

Perhaps I should use better modeling, like that which is sometimes used by the truth movement...

Edited by booNyzarC, 03 April 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[flyingswan]

booNyzarC, on 02 April 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

Take a very simple exercise.

Example 1:
Ball your dominant hand into a fist and hold your secondary hand out flatly.
Punch your flat hand with your dominant hand.  Punch hard.
Which hurts more?  Which gives way?

Example 2:
Now ball both hands into fists and aim them directly at each other.
Punch them together with equal force.  Don't punch too hard, it can really hurt...
Which hurts more?  Which gives way?

A better example would be:
Put one fist on a table.
Bring the other fist down on it hard.
Which hurts more?

This highlights the fact that even the very first impact isn't completely symmetrical.  The upper block has a free end so the applied stress diminishes away from the impact zone, the lower block is fixed to the ground and can carry the same stress all the way down.

[booNyzarC]

flyingswan, on 03 April 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

A better example would be:
Put one fist on a table.
Bring the other fist down on it hard.
Which hurts more?

This highlights the fact that even the very first impact isn't completely symmetrical.  The upper block has a free end so the applied stress diminishes away from the impact zone, the lower block is fixed to the ground and can carry the same stress all the way down.

Both simplified models serve to illustrate finite components of the collision and collapse mechanisms.  Attributing a value of better or worse is dependent on which components you are attempting to describe.  Neither are really sufficient to adequately model the very complex real world events, and their success or failure is dependent on the acceptance of certain assumptions by the audience.  Because of that last bit, I doubt if either will be given much weight by the target audience.

In my original model I was attempting to describe, in a very simple way, that a static floor suspended in place will give way if adequate forces and momentum are applied by another object in motion; and that the floor need not be destroyed in order to be displaced and compelled into motion of its own.  The fist does not destroy the opposing hand, but it does cause it to move.  The same would apply if it was open hand to open hand, or fist to fist where one hand is stationary and the other is moving; the stationary hand will give way.

I compared it with the fist to fist exercise with both in motion, because in my opinion that is what Q24 appears to be suggesting should happen; that both the lower block and upper block should be destroying each other at equal rates and that would equate to the full disintegration of the upper block after a few floors of collapse.  This just isn't the case because his foundational premise that the top floor being impacted in the lower block needs to be fully destroyed by the upper block in order to fail is fundamentally flawed.  The fact is that the upper and lower blocks are indeed destroying each other at equal rates, but each successive floor fails well before it is completely or even significantly pulverized and is compelled into gravity driven downward motion joining the mass of the upper block.

I'm sure there must be a vastly improved way to illustrate this, but that simple exercise was what jumped to mind at the time.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 03 April 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Why is it that 'extremely poor models' are so rampant in the Official Explanation?

I guess part of the reason that very poor models indeed must be employed in an attempt to explain the apparent suspension of the laws of physics that day, both at WTC and elsewhere.

Actually, the laws of physics support the official explanaiton in regards to the way the WTC buildings collapsed and dismiss the idea that explosives were planted prior ot impact. All a person has to do is to understand what happened at Bien Hoa, Vietnam.

Quote

Bien Hoa Disaster

This prompted more raids into North Vietnam. The B-57 mission continued to increase to the point that it became an around-the-clock commitment. This forced the weapons storage facility to deliver ordinance well ahead of the frag orders. There were bombs stored underneath the wings of the B-57s. The ordinance consisted of 250, 500 and 750-pound general-purpose bombs. Many bombs were armed with time-delay fuses. They were set for 24, 36, 48, 72 and 144-hour delay. All fuses were anti-withdrawal. There were also 750 lb of napalm stored on the ramp.

The prepositioning of this ordinance was the basis for one of the 'worst disasters in Air Force History'. On May 16, 1965, while waiting to takeoff on a mission, a B-57B exploded on the ground at Bien Hoa, setting off a whole chain of secondary explosions. Five 50,000 gallon bladders of JP-4 jet fuel went up in smoke. When the explosions finally ceased, ten B-57s, one Navy F-8 Crusader and fifteen A-1Es were destroyed plus several Ground Support Units.

Investigation and aftermath

The Bien Hoa Air Base Vietnam May 16, 1965 Conflagration/Fire Accident Investigation Board concluded the accidental explosion of a bomb on a parked B-57 at Bien Hoa triggered a series of blasts. The aircraft and the ammunition were stored too close together which allowed the fires and explosions to propagate.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 April 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 02 April 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

No, I'm not making any fundamental mistakes.

Yes sorry, you really are.  Like this (one of a number of errors I’m afraid)…

booNyzarC, on 02 April 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

you expect a stationary object which is incapable of arresting the collapse of a downward moving mass to deliver equal destructive forces on the object which is in motion.  This is absolutely false.

The relative speed and mass of each object do not alter the law; the forces in a collision are always equal and opposite.  A couple of extreme examples to make it clear (the first aimed at speed and the second aimed at mass): -

• When a Bugatti Veyron travelling at 267 mph impacts a Bugatti Veyron that is stationary, the forces at the point of contact are equal and opposite.  It actually doesn’t matter if the other Veyron is stationary, travelling forward or reversing.  And it doesn’t have to be the same car or even another car at all – it could be a house.  The fact the first Veyron is travelling faster does not affect the law; the equal and opposite distribution of forces.
  
  
• When an elephant steps on an ant, the forces at the point of impact are equal and opposite.  Of course the ant comes off worse and the elephant doesn’t even notice.  This is because the force involved is huge in relation to mass of the ant but infinitesimal in relation to mass of the elephant.  The fact remains that the force involved (or “destructive force” if you like), in the elephant crushing the ant, is distributed equally and opposite between each of them.

To reiterate:  neither the speed or mass change the fact that whatever forces are involved at the impact point, these are always distributed equal and opposite to each body.

Can we agree this for a start?  I can see we really need to get these physics fundamentals laid down before trying to apply it to the real world WTC.  I don’t know what else to suggest other than that you read up on the subject.  We can’t have you declaring Newton’s laws false otherwise the discussion is a non-starter.

booNyzarC, on 03 April 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

because in my opinion that is what Q24 appears to be suggesting should happen; that both the lower block and upper block should be destroying each other at equal rates and that would equate to the full disintegration of the upper block after a few floors of collapse.  This just isn't the case because his foundational premise that the top floor being impacted in the lower block needs to be fully destroyed by the upper block in order to fail is fundamentally flawed.  The fact is that the upper and lower blocks are indeed destroying each other at equal rates, but each successive floor fails well before it is completely or even significantly pulverized and is compelled into gravity driven downward motion joining the mass of the upper block.

There is another fundamental error in the above where you say each successive failed floor is, “compelled into gravity driven downward motion”.  Each failed level is not accelerated under the force of gravity, but driven downward by momentum of the upper block.  If each level failed and then were successively, “compelled into gravity driven downward motion”, the collapse would take 1 min 37 sec – it is the model which Judy Woods’ attempted to claim in her billiard ball example (don’t know if you’ve ever seen that – look it up).  Please try to understand, it has to be momentum of the upper block driving the collapse, i.e. the force of the upper block is acting on the lower structure throughout each level of destruction.  This is important to understand in applying Newton’s third law.

Apart from that, you have my argument correct except for use of the word “disintegration” (or “pulverised” as you said earlier).  I do not expect either block to disintegrate or be pulverised; only be broken into pieces both small and large until it can no longer be defined as a rigid block in the way it began.  We appear to agree in your statement above that I have bolded green – can you confirm what you mean?  Are you saying, “the upper and lower blocks are indeed destroying each other at equal rates [throughout the collapse, but the debris/constituent pieces (some of which will be large, i.e. not “disintegrated”) continue to drive the collapse]?”

[skyeagle409]

No secondaries = no planted explosives.






No sound of explosions during the collapse = no planted explosives

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 April 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[skyeagle409]

No evidence of explosives in the wreckages = no planted explosives

The link

Controlled Demolition Not Possible

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 April 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 04 April 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

Yes sorry, you really are.  Like this (one of a number of errors I’m afraid)…

No, actually that was just really poor wording on my part.  Taken all by itself, I agree that it is incorrectly stated.  I thought the language immediately after that and in my subsequent posts should have clarified the point though.  You even quoted one of those further down in your response where I think I made it pretty clear.

I suppose one could try to argue that I'm changing my story, so to speak, but honestly I'm not.  I just really wrote that very poorly.  I will try to be more careful.

Q24, on 04 April 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

The relative speed and mass of each object do not alter the law; the forces in a collision are always equal and opposite.  A couple of extreme examples to make it clear (the first aimed at speed and the second aimed at mass): -

• When a Bugatti Veyron travelling at 267 mph impacts a Bugatti Veyron that is stationary, the forces at the point of contact are equal and opposite.  It actually doesn’t matter if the other Veyron is stationary, travelling forward or reversing.  And it doesn’t have to be the same car or even another car at all – it could be a house.  The fact the first Veyron is travelling faster does not affect the law; the equal and opposite distribution of forces.
  
  
• When an elephant steps on an ant, the forces at the point of impact are equal and opposite.  Of course the ant comes off worse and the elephant doesn’t even notice.  This is because the force involved is huge in relation to mass of the ant but infinitesimal in relation to mass of the elephant.  The fact remains that the force involved (or “destructive force” if you like), in the elephant crushing the ant, is distributed equally and opposite between each of them.

To reiterate:  neither the speed or mass change the fact that whatever forces are involved at the impact point, these are always distributed equal and opposite to each body.

Can we agree this for a start?  I can see we really need to get these physics fundamentals laid down before trying to apply it to the real world WTC.  I don’t know what else to suggest other than that you read up on the subject.  We can’t have you declaring Newton’s laws false otherwise the discussion is a non-starter.

I do agree with this.

Do you agree that the degree of force and destructive power imparted to each is essentially limited by the weaker of the two objects?

Simply put:

If object A is descending with a potential destructive force of X and it impacts with weaker object B which has a resistant destructive force of Y (i.e. if X > Y), the maximum destruction which can be applied to either object is Y.

(Edit)
This is essentially similar to your elephant and ant analogy, where the upper block is like the elephant and the supporting connections holding up the next floor in the collapse sequence are like the ant.
(/Edit)

Q24, on 04 April 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

There is another fundamental error in the above where you say each successive failed floor is, “compelled into gravity driven downward motion”.  Each failed level is not accelerated under the force of gravity, but driven downward by momentum of the upper block.  If each level failed and then were successively, “compelled into gravity driven downward motion”, the collapse would take 1 min 37 sec – it is the model which Judy Woods’ attempted to claim in her billiard ball example (don’t know if you’ve ever seen that – look it up).  Please try to understand, it has to be momentum of the upper block driving the collapse, i.e. the force of the upper block is acting on the lower structure throughout each level of destruction.  This is important to understand in applying Newton’s third law.

Once again poor wording on my part.  I'll try to be more clear.

The actual resulting speed after impact with any given floor will be slower than the speed the upper block had prior to the moment of impact because of the conservation of momentum.  After this impact, the entire upper mass continues downward from this new slower velocity and continues to accelerate under the force of gravity until it reaches the next floor at a new speed; and the process repeats.  So long as the slowing imparted by the resistance supplied from each successive floor is insufficient to overcome the resulting momentum plus the acceleration of gravity, collapse speed will continue to increase until global collapse is complete.  If the resistance supplied from each successive floor does overcome the resulting momentum plus acceleration from gravity, the collapse speed will continually slow and eventually be stopped.

Q24, on 04 April 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

Apart from that, you have my argument correct except for use of the word “disintegration” (or “pulverised” as you said earlier).  I do not expect either block to disintegrate or be pulverised; only be broken into pieces both small and large until it can no longer be defined as a rigid block in the way it began.  We appear to agree in your statement above that I have bolded green – can you confirm what you mean?  Are you saying, “the upper and lower blocks are indeed destroying each other at equal rates [throughout the collapse, but the debris/constituent pieces (some of which will be large, i.e. not “disintegrated”) continue to drive the collapse]?”

I am indeed saying that the upper and lower blocks are destroying each other at equal rates.  Fortunately that particular portion wasn't poorly worded.

What I was trying to clarify, and did a woefully poor job of it apparently overall, is that the mutual damage to both is far less than you seem to think it should be.  The extent of damage is limited by the destructive force imparted by the lower block's ability to resist collapse against the significantly larger force of the falling upper block.

And it will indeed retain essentially the same characteristics of a "block" even after doing so.  This is because, as you described above, the failed floor is being pushed down by the momentum of the upper mass at a velocity greater than 0 and continuing to accelerate at the rate of gravity.  It isn't a flat bottomed solid block, but the resulting effect of impact on the next floor is essentially the same.

Edited by booNyzarC, 05 April 2012 - 12:41 AM.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

I suppose one could try to argue that I'm changing my story, so to speak, but honestly I'm not.  

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

I do agree with this.

Do you agree that the degree of force and destructive power imparted to each is essentially limited by the weaker of the two objects?

Simply put:

If object A is descending with a potential destructive force of X and it impacts with weaker object B which has a resistant destructive force of Y (i.e. if X > Y), the maximum destruction which can be applied to either object is Y.

(Edit)
This is essentially similar to your elephant and ant analogy, where the upper block is like the elephant and the supporting connections holding up the next floor in the collapse sequence are like the ant.
(/Edit)

Yes, that applies where one body is weaker than the other.  It cannot be applied to the WTC where the upper and lower blocks are constructed from the same materials.  Then the “resistant destructive force” as you call it, of the upper and lower blocks, is equal.  Combined with the fact Newton’s third law states impacting bodies share an equal and opposite distribution of force, the destruction of each will likewise be equal.

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

The actual resulting speed after impact with any given floor will be slower than the speed the upper block had prior to the moment of impact because of the conservation of momentum.  After this impact, the entire upper mass continues downward from this new slower velocity and continues to accelerate under the force of gravity until it reaches the next floor at a new speed; and the process repeats.  So long as the slowing imparted by the resistance supplied from each successive floor is insufficient to overcome the resulting momentum plus the acceleration of gravity, collapse speed will continue to increase until global collapse is complete.  If the resistance supplied from each successive floor does overcome the resulting momentum plus acceleration from gravity, the collapse speed will continually slow and eventually be stopped.

You are putting too much emphasis on “floors” rather than considering the building as the continuous structure that it actually was.  After impacting a floor the structure does not simply fall through air until it hits the next floor and so on.  That is a pancake collapse you are describing, which did not happen.  The core and perimeter columns that held the building up were continuous, with contact between the upper and lower blocks constant throughout collapse.

It was not fall, destroy, fall, destroy, fall, destroy, etc.
It was destroy, destroy, destroy, non-stop.

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

I am indeed saying that the upper and lower blocks are destroying each other at equal rates.  Fortunately that particular portion wasn't poorly worded.

What I was trying to clarify, and did a woefully poor job of it apparently overall, is that the mutual damage to both is far less than you seem to think it should be.  The extent of damage is limited by the destructive force imparted by the lower block's ability to resist collapse against the significantly larger force of the falling upper block.

And it will indeed retain essentially the same characteristics of a "block" even after doing so.  This is because, as you described above, the failed floor is being pushed down by the momentum of the upper mass at a velocity greater than 0 and continuing to accelerate at the rate of gravity.  It isn't a flat bottomed solid block, but the resulting effect of impact on the next floor is essentially the same.

The upper block is no stronger than the lower block.  If the upper level of the lower block buckles and breaks at impact, then the lower level of the upper block buckles and breaks at impact also… remember Newton’s third law; the distribution of forces at the impact point are equal and opposite.

I further don’t see how you are getting from, “the upper and lower blocks are destroying each other at equal rates” (which I agree with) to, “the mutual damage to both is far less than you seem to think” (which is farcical).  What do you think is destroying the lower block if not the upper block?

How can the upper block impact the lower block (both constructed of the same material) and one suffer greater damage than the other?  It cannot, otherwise you are violating Newton’s third law.

Edited by Q24, 05 April 2012 - 01:46 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 05 April 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Yes, that applies where one body is weaker than the other.  It cannot be applied to the WTC where the upper and lower blocks are constructed from the same materials.  Then the “resistant destructive force” as you call it, of the upper and lower blocks, is equal.  Combined with the fact Newton’s third law states impacting bodies share an equal and opposite distribution of force, the destruction of each will likewise be equal.

Being constructed from the same materials is completely irrelevant to the argument.

The upper block need only accomplish one thing; Break the next floor free from whatever is holding it up so that this floor can be pushed down with the remaining momentum and then both accelerate from there under the force of gravity.

Q24, on 05 April 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

You are putting too much emphasis on “floors” rather than considering the building as the continuous structure that it actually was.  After impacting a floor the structure does not simply fall through air until it hits the next floor and so on.  That is a pancake collapse you are describing, which did not happen.  The core and perimeter columns that held the building up were continuous, with contact between the upper and lower blocks constant throughout collapse.

It was not fall, destroy, fall, destroy, fall, destroy, etc.
It was destroy, destroy, destroy, non-stop.

There were most definitely elements of a pancake collapse.  This should be clearly evident to anyone watching WTC 1 in particular.  Look at the central columns still standing proud long after the rest of the building had collapsed around them in the following video.  Starting around the 40 second mark you can see the remnants of the central columns as the dust and smoke begin to clear.  Then watch as they finally fall over the next remaining 10 seconds or so.




Once again, the only thing the upper block needs to accomplish is to separate the next floor from its supports.  This should be obvious.  Those connections are the weakest link, and they will naturally be the first to go.  Once they go, gravity does the rest.

Q24, on 05 April 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

The upper block is no stronger than the lower block.  If the upper level of the lower block buckles and breaks at impact, then the lower level of the upper block buckles and breaks at impact also… remember Newton’s third law; the distribution of forces at the impact point are equal and opposite.

Of course.  I agree with you here and I'm not saying otherwise.

Q24, on 05 April 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

I further don’t see how you are getting from, “the upper and lower blocks are destroying each other at equal rates” (which I agree with) to, “the mutual damage to both is far less than you seem to think” (which is farcical).  What do you think is destroying the lower block if not the upper block?

The upper block isn't fully destroying the lower block at each successive floor.  It is only destroying the structural capacity to continue holding up that floor.  After this structural capacity is breached, the upper block along with its newly accumulated mass from that next level continue to descend accelerated by the force of gravity.  So what if the latest floor damages the upper block in an equal value?

The net result is that both are still falling from the remaining momentum plus the acceleration of gravity.

Q24, on 05 April 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

How can the upper block impact the lower block (both constructed of the same material) and one suffer greater damage than the other?  It cannot, otherwise you are violating Newton’s third law.

Again, the upper block and lower block are experiencing the same amount of damage throughout.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

Being constructed from the same materials is completely irrelevant to the argument.

I see, the construction is relevant when...

you want a “fist” and “palm”.
you want an elephant and ant.
you want a “weaker object B”.

i.e. relevant when you want a strong upper block and weak lower block.

But soon as I point out the fact that the upper and lower blocks are of equal strength and construction…

Then the construction and material becomes “completely irrelevant”.

Come on booNy, play fair.

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

There were most definitely elements of a pancake collapse.  This should be clearly evident to anyone watching WTC 1 in particular.  Look at the central columns still standing proud long after the rest of the building had collapsed around them in the following video.  Starting around the 40 second mark you can see the remnants of the central columns as the dust and smoke begin to clear.  Then watch as they finally fall over the next remaining 10 seconds or so.

Sorry, that is wrong on all counts.

That is the external columns you see fall at the end, not the core.  I recommend you view a few more videos (search “WTC spire” on YouTube) where this is clearly evident.  Don’t worry, you are not the only one to make the mistake.

Further, there is zero evidence of pancaking of the floors.  Even NIST stated, “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”.

It is really not about the “floors”, but the structural columns.

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

Of course.  I agree with you here and I'm not saying otherwise.


The upper block isn't fully destroying the lower block at each successive floor.  It is only destroying the structural capacity to continue holding up that floor.  After this structural capacity is breached, the upper block along with its newly accumulated mass from that next level continue to descend accelerated by the force of gravity.  So what if the latest floor damages the upper block in an equal value?

The net result is that both are still falling from the remaining momentum plus the acceleration of gravity.

Ok, the upper level of the lower block and lower level of the upper block impact and are each partially destroyed in accordance with Newton’s third law.  We appear to agree that.  Then what happens next?...

The mass of the upper block continues downward movement, compressing or expelling the two partially destroyed levels until the next intact level of the lower block is encountered.  The pattern then repeats - the upper level of the lower block and lower level of the upper block impact (with the partially destroyed levels between) and are each partially destroyed in accordance with Newton’s third law.  And so on and so on.  Remember, the partially destroyed levels at each stage are continually driven downward by momentum of the upper block which is already moving faster than gravity alone can accelerate the impacted levels, i.e. the upper block is constantly applying force at the impact front.

Continuing the above pattern, after the upper block has fallen through its own height (approximately 20 storeys for WTC1), we will have 40 levels partially destroyed (consisting of 20 from the upper block and 20 from the lower block).  This is in accordance with Newton’s third law.  Of course all of those 40 partially destroyed levels (the percentage which has not been expelled sideways at any rate) are still going to be falling down on the remaining lower block causing further damage to the structure.

Can we agree to all that?

It does seem to be what you are saying here…

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

Again, the upper block and lower block are experiencing the same amount of damage throughout.

Edited by Q24, 05 April 2012 - 04:29 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 05 April 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

Being constructed from the same materials is completely irrelevant to the argument.

I see, the construction is relevant when...

you want a “fist” and “palm”.
you want an elephant and ant.
you want a “weaker object B”.

i.e. relevant when you want a strong upper block and weak lower block.

But soon as I point out the fact that the upper and lower blocks are of equal strength and construction…

Then the construction and material becomes “completely irrelevant”.

Come on booNy, play fair.

You speak of playing fair and then you selectively quote me.  Very interesting.  Let's see if there is any irony in that, shall we?

I already responded to your points, but perhaps I wasn't clear and was again poorly wording it?  Of course, if I had poorly worded it, I would expect you to highlight my failure again.  But you didn't...  so let's see what you decided to ignore in the full quote and then I'll re-clarify what I intended to communicate if needed...

The full quote should have been this.

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

Being constructed from the same materials is completely irrelevant to the argument.

The upper block need only accomplish one thing; Break the next floor free from whatever is holding it up so that this floor can be pushed down with the remaining momentum and then both accelerate from there under the force of gravity.

Why did you exclude the additional paragraph?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you may have avoided this paragraph because it clarified the irrelevancy of the building being constructed from the same materials.  I've made this point several times, in several posts, and you continuously avoid it.  Why are you avoiding it?

Confront it Q24.  If the point is wrong tell me why.  You can't brush this under the rug without people noticing.  I've included additional reasoning in support of this point by the way.  This particular ignored quote was merely a brief summation of sorts.  While you are attempting to refute it, I suggest you likewise attempt to refute the supporting statements I've already made that are related.

Q24, on 05 April 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

Sorry, that is wrong on all counts.

Wrong on all counts?  If I'm proven incorrect, I'm not afraid to admit it.  But all counts?  I guess we'll see.

Q24, on 05 April 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

That is the external columns you see fall at the end, not the core.  I recommend you view a few more videos (search “WTC spire” on YouTube) where this is clearly evident.  Don’t worry, you are not the only one to make the mistake.

Hmmm...  are you sure those are external columns?  I'll admit that I'm not sure they are core columns after your pushback here.  You may be correct about which columns they are.  I honestly don't know.  I have assumed they were core columns for a very long time.

I'll tell you what though.  Let's say they are external columns merely for the sake of argument.

Why are they still standing well after the rest of the building has collapsed?

If we assume that those are external columns, for the sake of argument, does it logically follow that they did not offer any resistant support in the overall collapse?  Clearly they didn't collapse with the rest of the structure.

How is this any different from what I've contended before that all the upper block needs to accomplish is to separate the floors from whatever is holding them up?  It appears completely consistent with that statement to me.  The fact that there are any structural elements remaining intact well above the collapse zone only supports my argument.

If we assume that those are exterior columns, clearly the floors have been detached from them, and they offered very little, if any, resistance to the collapse continuation.

Would you not agree?

Q24, on 05 April 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

Further, there is zero evidence of pancaking of the floors.  Even NIST stated, “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”.

It is really not about the “floors”, but the structural columns.

When you consider that NIST was interested only in collapse initiation your argument on this front becomes completely moot.  Any reference to "pancake theory" on their part must be in relation to collapse initiation.  It is pretty obvious to me that they were refuting previous claims that the floors were the initial point of failure and pointing out that it was the exterior wall that was the initial point of failure.

Is there a flaw in this logic that you can point out?

Q24, on 05 April 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

Ok, the upper level of the lower block and lower level of the upper block impact and are each partially destroyed in accordance with Newton’s third law.  We appear to agree that.  Then what happens next?...

The mass of the upper block continues downward movement, compressing or expelling the two partially destroyed levels until the next intact level of the lower block is encountered.  The pattern then repeats - the upper level of the lower block and lower level of the upper block impact (with the partially destroyed levels between) and are each partially destroyed in accordance with Newton’s third law.  And so on and so on.  Remember, the partially destroyed levels at each stage are continually driven downward by momentum of the upper block which is already moving faster than gravity alone can accelerate the impacted levels, i.e. the upper block is constantly applying force at the impact front.

Continuing the above pattern, after the upper block has fallen through its own height (approximately 20 storeys for WTC1), we will have 40 levels partially destroyed (consisting of 20 from the upper block and 20 from the lower block).  This is in accordance with Newton’s third law.  Of course all of those 40 partially destroyed levels (the percentage which has not been expelled sideways at any rate) are still going to be falling down on the remaining lower block causing further damage to the structure.

Can we agree to all that?

It does seem to be what you are saying here…

There weren't 20 floors above the collapse zone on WTC 1.  Are you trying to trick me in some way?  Didn't you suggest playing fair?

You are still trying to contend that there is a complete destruction floor by floor.  No, you aren't putting it in those terms, but you are most definitely insinuating it.  This simply didn't happen and need not happen for global collapse.

How many times and in how many ways do I need to say this?

The only thing the upper block needs to accomplish is to separate the next floor from its supports.  Gravity does the rest.

How many times and in how many ways will you ignore and avoid this simple fact?

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

I have a sneaking suspicion that you may have avoided this paragraph because it clarified the irrelevancy of the building being constructed from the same materials.  I've made this point several times, in several posts, and you continuously avoid it.  Why are you avoiding it?

You are coming across a little paranoid.  The “full text” does not alter anything I would have said.  Nor was it hidden, seeing that it was plainly visible for anyone to read in your previous post.  I’m just trying to save a little bandwidth space.  Nor in any case did it demonstrate “irrelevancy of the building being constructed from the same materials” as you think.

Of course construction and materials of the upper and lower blocks are relevant.  As both are of the same construction and materials, this means the equal and opposite forces that we have been discussing result in equal and opposite damage, specifically because the upper and lower blocks are of the same type.  If one or the other were made of twigs (i.e. different materials) we would be looking at another case altogether, showing the materials are relevant.

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

Hmmm...  are you sure those are external columns?  I'll admit that I'm not sure they are core columns after your pushback here.  You may be correct about which columns they are.  I honestly don't know.  I have assumed they were core columns for a very long time.

I'll tell you what though.  Let's say they are external columns merely for the sake of argument.

Why are they still standing well after the rest of the building has collapsed?

If we assume that those are external columns, for the sake of argument, does it logically follow that they did not offer any resistant support in the overall collapse?  Clearly they didn't collapse with the rest of the structure.

How is this any different from what I've contended before that all the upper block needs to accomplish is to separate the floors from whatever is holding them up?  It appears completely consistent with that statement to me.  The fact that there are any structural elements remaining intact well above the collapse zone only supports my argument.

If we assume that those are exterior columns, clearly the floors have been detached from them, and they offered very little, if any, resistance to the collapse continuation.

Would you not agree?

Yes I’m sure the spires are external columns (unless someone followed the instruction manual wrong and put core columns on the outside).  Those few columns alone were negligent in providing resistance.

This tangent is moving away from the point.

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

When you consider that NIST was interested only in collapse initiation your argument on this front becomes completely moot.  Any reference to "pancake theory" on their part must be in relation to collapse initiation.  It is pretty obvious to me that they were refuting previous claims that the floors were the initial point of failure and pointing out that it was the exterior wall that was the initial point of failure.

Is there a flaw in this logic that you can point out?

Yes – NIST did not refer simply to the “initial” failure but “progressive failure of the floor systems”.  NIST reject the “pancake theory” in its entirety - the collapse did not begin that way, and there is no indication the collapse evolved to that method – please see below for my further comment on “floors”.

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

There weren't 20 floors above the collapse zone on WTC 1.  Are you trying to trick me in some way?  Didn't you suggest playing fair?

You are still trying to contend that there is a complete destruction floor by floor.  No, you aren't putting it in those terms, but you are most definitely insinuating it.  This simply didn't happen and need not happen for global collapse.

Did I already mention you are coming across paranoid?  I just keep it in memory that the plane hit around floor 90 (it’s an easy round figure to remember), that’s the only reason I specified “approximately 20”.  We can be precise but it doesn’t make a difference to the process I set out.  Here you go (with more accurate figures)…

Ok, the upper level of the lower block and lower level of the upper block impact and are each partially destroyed in accordance with Newton’s third law. We appear to agree that. Then what happens next?...

The mass of the upper block continues downward movement, compressing or expelling the two partially destroyed levels until the next intact level of the lower block is encountered. The pattern then repeats - the upper level of the lower block and lower level of the upper block impact (with the partially destroyed levels between) and are each partially destroyed in accordance with Newton’s third law. And so on and so on. Remember, the partially destroyed levels at each stage are continually driven downward by momentum of the upper block which is already moving faster than gravity alone can accelerate the impacted levels, i.e. the upper block is constantly applying force at the impact front.

Continuing the above pattern, after the upper block has fallen through its own height (approximately 14 storeys for WTC1), we will have 28 levels partially destroyed (consisting of 14 from the upper block and 14 from the lower block). This is in accordance with Newton’s third law. Of course all of those 28 partially destroyed levels (the percentage which has not been expelled sideways at any rate) are still going to be falling down on the remaining lower block causing further damage to the structure.

Can we agree to all that?

It does seem to be what you are saying here…

Second, I made sure to include the word “partially” before each “destroyed”.  Yet you still claim I’m “definitely insinuating” “complete destruction”, even though you accept I’m not saying that.  What on Earth?  What am I supposed to say?  Nevermind, just listen - I do not contend that any floor was entirely “disintegrated”, “pulverized” or “completely destoryed”.

Back to the point – do we agree to the above process set out?  You didn’t answer.  This is really important as it is the whole crux of my Newton contention.  If you do not agree with the process then why, and how does your quote, “Again, the upper block and lower block are experiencing the same amount of damage throughout” fit?  According to that, if 14 floors of the lower block are damaged then 14 floors of the upper block are damaged.  As this is fully in accordance with Newton’s third law, I’d be delighted if we could agree that point.

If you want to then contend the 28 partially damaged floors continued collapse, that is another matter.

booNyzarC, on 05 April 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

How many times and in how many ways do I need to say this?

The only thing the upper block needs to accomplish is to separate the next floor from its supports.  Gravity does the rest.

How many times and in how many ways will you ignore and avoid this simple fact?

I haven’t ignored it, it is included from beginning of the process above.  Note where I say:  “the upper level of the lower block and lower level of the upper block impact and are each partially destroyed in accordance with Newton’s third law”.  This includes whatever damage occurs to the lower block, along with the equal and opposite reaction to the upper block.

And are you still literally referring to “floors” as in the floor trusses?  If so, I have already pointed out that is not the main resistance to collapse.  The floor didn’t hold the building upright, the columns did.  The main resistance that needs to be overcome are the columns.  The upper block can’t even get to each successive floor without overcoming the columns.

You don’t seem to appreciate that the core, which did overwhelming work in holding the building upright, was a continuous structure throughout the building.  Each tower was not just a box of “floors” and air.  Do you think the floors all slid down and collapsed independently of the core?  We could take away all of the floors and external columns and the core would still be standing.  What do you think was destroying the core when all you want to refer to are “floors”?  Talking about “floors” does not address the collapse.

Even Bazant doesn’t talk about “floors”, why do you think he wants all impact forces to impart into cross sections of the columns?  It is the columns that need to be overcome, not the “floors”.

You don’t have to answer any of that, the questions are rhetorical.  Hopefully I have made the point enough ways that you understand.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 04 April 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

To reiterate:  neither the speed or mass change the fact that whatever forces are involved at the impact point, these are always distributed equal and opposite to each body.

No-one is denying that the situation at the impact point is symmetrical for the first impact.  However, once there is a layer of debris between the two blocks the situation is no longer symmetrical.  Both the upper block and the debris are falling, the lower block is static.  This means that at the next floor down, the relative velocity between the debris and the lower block is much higher than the relative velocity between the debris and the upper block.

To put it another way, the force exerted by the lower block is now shared between decelerating the debris and decelerating the upper block, so the force on the upper block alone is less.

[quillius]

Hello chaps....great discussion as usual....

Q, Jowenko, in the first video at around 3.20 onwards makes some interesting points regarding the columns and the varying support (I believe he used the term 'uneven')

Some of the other key parts are when he mentions the:
- strong centre
- favourable central collapse
- wind resistant
- springs (I know we already touched upon this)
- The mass from above

I appreciate you think there is the element of 'bias' in this first video but at the same time I dont think that can fully negate his expert opinion.

edit to add: Flyingswan made a good point regarding the falling debris absorbing some of that equal/opposite force

Edited by quillius, 05 April 2012 - 10:32 AM.